Arnie and his enviro cronies screwed us--AGAIN

[robmandel]

Originally Posted by zenspearo

Somebody else takes this.

general zenspearo, I'm on the ground for you anytime you call!! you were awesome at our meetings. if I didn't say it before, thanks a million!!

Originally Posted by Stan K G

How about instead of jumping up my ass you do some of that explaining and educating?

There's like 20 different maps for different proposals and none of the news articles cover what is likely to go into effect. All I'm seeing is each side calling the other nazi's and "devils".

you have no idea the bloodletting fight we went through. if you weren't in carlsbad, long beach, ontario, wherever the hell else, as a whole bunch of us were, you can't understand what we faced. for those of us, LJ guys, malibu guys, spearos, we fought a life and death battle. I consider all of them my brothers. I'd go to war with them any time. as long as blood runs through my veins, I'm all in.

first, the emotional legacy of this event alone is enormous. we faced literally, from teh start, a death sentence. so your "compromise" is a bad situation that could have been so much worse. which sounds like a compromise, except there was no "give" on the enviro part. they got to take, take, take. they just didn't take it all. yet.

second, you have no understanding of the web of conflicts, compromises, and outright dishonest and illegal activities. look, I spent a ton of time investigating, and there were business partners (schem and anderson) on the BRTF, who sold out their votes to save their asses in MDR. the head of the BRTF was bought and paid for by the monterey bay aquarium via the packard foundation, who also funded the entire mlpa process. there so much more. the group running the show, the RLFF, gets its money from the PF and MBA. and the chair of that group is a colleague of meg caldwell's at stanford. there's a huge, I mean HUUUUUGE freaking web of conflicts.

you didn't see school teachers parade in their whole classroom and stand there parroting lines they were given extra credit to recite a bunch of mindless shit. while our ass-kicking kid Clay jumped into the fray like a fighter, stood tall, and kicked the shit outta those bastards. T-Man, you got a great boy there!! and what that asshat wiseman did to your son, man you got some self-restraint!!!

you didn't see the mistreatment and outright abuse we suffered while the laguna tuna battalion got to ramble on and on. I could go on...

from teh start, it was a decked stacked so much against us. it was supposed to be a simple, get in-get out-get done, deal, steamroll us and move on. but we stood there at the pass of the hot gates, and there weren't even 300 of us.

anyways, it ain't about closures, compromises, and science. it's principle. fishing is a right, we've hurt nobody, and we aren't the problem. they put our backs to the wall and lined up the firing squad. the whole process has nothing to do at all with protecting marine species. period. it's a disgusting abuse of power. remember, there was no victory for us. if they did nothing at all, we'd be where we started with, which was all we wanted. we asked for nothing from anybody. simply wanted the dfg to manage the game, which is their job, which is what out license money goes for. period. no matter what happened, we lost. period. that is no compromise. we are no special interest. special interests ask government for favors, money, special privilege. all we want is to be left the hell alone. period. we don't hurt anyone, nobody has been aggrieved by us, nobody has cause for redress. period.

we are the victims of a tyrannical government run amock. and we're still gonna fight like hell.

I'm sure you don't know any of that, which is fine. go back, read the old posts about what happened.

[zenspearo]

From: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1

Jack Baylis to be appointed Fish and Game Commissioner

"Fish and Game Commission to hold special meeting on fishing limits
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 09/28/2010 06:42:56 PM PDT
Updated: 09/28/2010 06:52:34 PM PDT

A state commission will hold a special meeting Wednesday to consider extending the public comment period for a controversial plan that could halt or limit fishing in nearly 400 square miles of waters off Southern California.
A large area off Point Vicente on the Palos Verdes Peninsula would be affected by the plan, which was developed under the state's Marine Life Protection Act, known as the MLPA.
The 11-year-old law, designed in part to protect ocean habitat, prompted a lengthy and closely watched process that last year divided fishing interests and environmentalists over which coastal waters should be designated marine protected areas.
The five-member California Fish and Game Commission, which has in recent weeks seen abrupt changes in its makeup, will today at a noon meeting near Sacramento vote on whether to allow another 45 days for comment on a lengthy environmental review of the proposal.

A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said late Tuesday that a new appointee - Jack Baylis of Los Angeles - would be announced this morning and would participate in the meeting.
Baylis, an executive with global design and engineering firm AECOM, is on the board of the state Coastal Conservancy and is a former board member of nonprofit local advocacy group Heal the Bay. The group pushed for strong local protections - some of which were intensely opposed by South Bay fishermen - during the MLPA process.
Commission Deputy Executive Director Adrianna Shea said today's vote comes in response to requests from members of the public who wanted more time to examine a state-required environmental report that is more than 500 pages long.
"They're saying it's because it's a large document and they need time to review it. Others are saying it's a stall tactic so a decision won't be made until after the election," Shea said.
The report focuses on a compromise plan that was approved last year by the MLPA initiative's Blue Ribbon Task Force. The Fish and Game Commission must certify the review and related regulations before marine protected areas can be created.
The report was made available Aug. 18. Comment is currently due Oct. 4, and commission staff expected a vote on the plan by December.
If an extension is approved today, comments would be due in mid-November and a commission vote on the landmark marine initiative would not occur until after a new governor is in office following the Nov. 2 election, Shea said.
Today's vote comes after a period of uncertainty about the Fish and Game Commission's membership.
Last month, Don Benninghoven, a commission appointee who was thought to be sympathetic to environmentalists and who had previously overseen the Blue Ribbon Task Force, was not confirmed to the post by the state Senate.
Then, on Sept. 9, Schwarzenegger's office announced a new appointee: Michael Sutsos, a 56-year-old Sonoma resident who is president of a Bay Area hunting club.
Sutsos participated in one two-day commission meeting in mid-September. At that time, he voted with the majority to bring the MLPA public comment extension to a vote at today's meeting.

On Monday, Sutsos told commission staff that he had been informed his appointment was being withdrawn, Shea said. Schwarzenegger spokesman Matthew Connelly would not say what caused the change in commission makeup. "It didn't work out. It's a personnel matter and I can't really go beyond that," Connelly said.
Baylis would have to be confirmed by the state Senate within one year or his appointment would expire, Shea said. If confirmed, Baylis' term would expire in 2016.
melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com
Find out more
What: Fish and Game Commission meeting to consider extending public review of an environmental report on a plan to limit or halt fishing and protect ocean habitat in Southern California.
Where: The meeting is in McClellan, Calif. Watch online at cal-span.org.
When: Noon today
More info: The review document is available at dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/regulatorydocs_sc.asp"

[AquaticHunter]

Originally Posted by zenspearo

From: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1

Jack Baylis to be appointed Fish and Game Commissioner


Baylis, is on the board of the state Coastal Conservancy and is a former board member of nonprofit local advocacy group Heal the Bay. "

We need to start calling State Senetors to make sure this guy is not confirmed.

Originally Posted by Grego

What the F...seems like the enviros are hunting and fishing around this board AGAIN with this stan man and bmercury login names

Exactly what I was thinking. But I'm proud to stand and fight with the rest of you guys. As Rob said, "I'm on the ground for you anytime you call!!"

[Cheney]

So with Baylis being appointed, this is a nail on the coffin? Or is there still a chance to get the extention?

[Gino]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

For example, has anyone brought up the argument that if zones are made catch and release, legal fishermen are very prone to reporting poachers to DFG, whereas no-fish zones would just be prone to poaching without any law abiding fishmen around to report it.

I think kind of argument would resonate well given the DFGs manpower shortages.

The very guy who started this post along with Mr/ Lebowitz were the ones who were the "level headed" folks who took on the taste to represent us. your ill informed.

Everything You have said was brought up, and has been exuasted. There was very little comproise on anything. There was some succes to get Hook n Line fishing allowed in La jolla, but it didnt help our Spearfishing friends.

They had a certain territory type size and requirments going into the map making process.... Most of the maps your looking at was the bare minimum... And they still pushed for more.

Your ill informed, sorry but the MLPA website isnt going to help you all that much. I gave u my # and i sent you a PM i was willign to help explain or answer questions fro you. That offer is still int he table

But let me suggest you keep quiet when you go on with other political Jargon, its not apart of the topic. The group of people on this forum and those who fought agaisnt the closures are far from "Tea Party" folks many of them being Democrats. Theres no partisan politics involved in out side of this process. So leave that in the shitter.

Alot of guys took time away from there famlies, there vacation time from work, and more to show up at a multiple meetings from San Diego to LA and inbetween... for 15 secounds of speaking time at a public comment. Only to find out the public comments were almost largely a front for "transparency" may of these folks were at these meetings all day long.
Do you know the owners of this very site make a good deal of money of kayakfishing... some of these closures potentially could have really hurt there buisness. They arent the only ones either...

Like I said some folks are Quite bitter about it. You werent there you werent involved. So keep your trap shut

This group of folks Raises every year over 10K or more for Cancer or a families in need. Thats just 1 tournament. Ask all the Questions you have about the MLPa. But Give this comunity a little more respect. Youll get a a more friendly response.

[Gino]

Hey i was only stating a fact which is true. I put no partisan Endorsement on my post... Thats the part where you came in touting your "Tea Party" Acusations... And your Post about Muslim or Mexicans was highly Racist. Not sure where that came from.

If you read the origional post of this thread it talked about the Governors influence on the MLPA process, so naturally talking about the Governors Race and its canidates makes sense. Considering things could change extremely. I gave a critical opions on both of them. And I made the closing point of that when i said the next governor has and will have more important issues than the MLPA to worry about. So putting our chips in that direction isnt going to do us much good.,

And I told you, Id be willing to explain the problems with the maps for you. I sent you a PM and a phone number. so we could spare this thread the posting stress.

(then there's the problem of some of you guys wanting no preserves at all, even existing ones, so that's some counter extemism to the extreme environmentalists)

There was men fishing feeding there Families long before there was a "Marine Reserve" Not sure thats counter Extremeism. We arent telling the Enviormentalist what they can or cant do. We are telling them what they cant do to us. Like I said Your clearly uneducated on the issue. Ill even go to the extent of saying you may have a warped view on what public process is about. Or how it works.

Why dont you tell us where your comming from. Since you clearly cant comprehend our side of the issue. . What facts do you bring to the table to support the MLPA closures and the current Maps selections. What Science do you have to back up your opinion. And Lets here your Ideas.
You havent Asked 1 question, all youve done is talk shit.

And for the record. If venting and ranting got us a free soda from Burger King, Itd be alot more than what we got from having an "inteligent Dialect" and "reaching across the Isle" or what you call "reasonable compromise" ever got us in this process

So lets hear it. Why are the MLPA maps to you a good compromise? dont be shy.

[T Bone]

Stan, since your new you are going to get a pass...

I have been dealing mainly with my sons cancer this last year and havent had the opportunity to go to many meetings.I did make it to the one in Ontario at the Doubletree and got to meet many of you there.I can say that Kayak fisherman and Spearos were about 90% of the turnout for our side.No one really representing sportboat landings that I meet(who have a monetary stake in this)none of the Newport Lobster fleet(who will lose Laguna)just a few other fisherman.
You are literally speaking DIRECTLY to the ones fighting the fight for fisherman right here.A very clean fight too I might add.So thats a little something for you to chew on before you go any further.

To my brothers in arms
We will raise up our glasses against evil forces...

[deepdvr]

Stan, why be so combative? Obviously, your views are not those of just about everyone on this forum. It's time to let this one die on the vine. You are not going to convert anyone here.

This is a very sensitive topic for everyone on this forum. There are other means of fostering 'conservation' that don't involve restricting access. We've been advocating this from day one. There is a reason we have a department of fish and game and regulations. This is simply a land grab by the other side.

As was stated before, you are new here but don't make the rookie mistake off stepping in this one. Many here have devoted a tremendous amount of time, money, lost wages, etc. to the cause.

[kurt]

If you weren't at the meetings and involved with the process, it's hard to explain how the BRTF changed the rules, or tried to change the rules, when it didn't suit them. How one side was admonished for being threatening and uncompromising for wearing one color shirt, only to see the other side wear the same color shirts at future meetings, and nothing was said. How new closures were all of a sudden added on to existing maps.

We went to these meetings in good faith, offering our input, hoping that the public would be heard. Unfortunately, these meetings had a predetermined goal and we were virtually ignored. This is all politics, with little or no science involved, as far as I can see. You can see that with the governor's dismissal of a DFG commissioner who committed the sin of wanting more time for a 548 page document to be studied. I'm sure the new commissioner who was appointed today will vote for no extension. His background indicates he will.

[robmandel]

everything you need to know is that when sustos asked some questions based on science, and simply wanted more time to review the document, he was fired. we don't have any species in danger.

truth is the mpa's won't help fisheries at all. there is no science to back it up. the only evidence offered was mpa's in other countries which a) were never managed at all in the first place and b) suffered from the tragedy of the commons.

now, I teach economics in high school and college (well, did in college before the budget axe!!). any economist will tell you that when you make a resource off limits, you effectively make its value zero. in other words, it has no value, and is worthless. what this means is that there is no reason or incentive to protect or preserve or in any other way take care of the resource. so expect the polluting of those areas to increase. why? well, the water has no value, and polluting it cannot lessen the value in any way. period.

the other problem any economist will tell you is that in closing those areas, you create an economic drain. maintenance and protection require vast effort, and will always be a losing proposition. since you can't utilize the resource, it offers no benefit.

as for the mpa's working, well, they don't. there is no evidence of the "spillover effect". it won't benefit pelagics obviously as they migrate through. as for residents, like calico bass, there is something called carrying capacity. and when any area in particular reaches it, populations won't keep growing and expending. besides, what they closed off or wanted to close off) were particularly (well, except in PV) good habitat areas so there's simply not the habitat to support expansion on the periphery. and, do you think the sport boats won't have those gps coords plugged in? you think they're not going to sit on the edges and pick off any spillover bass? please. what fools those people are!!

see also the DFG artificial reef program.

the problems that the coast and the coastal fishery faces - over-development, runoff, pollution, erosion, et al. - are not and cannot be addressed by the mlpa. go ahead and read the bill. I did. there's nothing in there which addresses those problems as a whole, which (pollution for instance) will "spill over" from non-mpa's into mpa's. so the fundamental issue isn't addressed. but, there's a catch: the burden on the localities to maintain, and worse, the requirements:

"the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state."
also
"Marine life reserves shall be designed, to the extent practicable, to ensure that activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area are avoided."

which means that it's going to hit local areas very hard. that's a huge economic impact which was NEVER considered. which by the way, was addressed somewhat at the F&G meeting in march. the local city gov'ts are scared.

which is another problem in economics, the infrastructure problem. pols love building bridges - jobs, fancy signs, even get to name them in west virginia!! - but afterwards, the upkeep gets to be enormously expensive. and it'll be a drain on california's, and the local's, economies for a looooong time. and the unforeseen consequences, the loss of fishing, etc., and the impact on jobs, hell, all of south SaMo bay cities lobbied hard to keep rocky point open. yo uthink it was all abotu fishing? please.

and this:
To ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines.
none exist. DFG wardens already said they can't.

and this:
An identification of select species or groups of species likely to benefit from MPAs, and the extent of their marine habitat, with special attention to marine breeding and spawning grounds, and available information on oceanographic features, such as current patterns, upwelling zones, and other factors that significantly affect the distribution of those fish or shellfish and their larvae.

none of this was part of the process. it was about closures, but no mention of species was presented.


The department shall establish a process for external peer review of the scientific basis for the master plan prepared pursuant to Section 2855.
never happened.

the mlpa violated the law also as it the SAT didn't have the required members

(A)Staff from the department, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board, to be designated by each of those departments.
(C) One member, appointed from a list prepared by Sea Grant marine advisers, who shall have direct expertise with ocean habitat and sea life in California marine waters.

A and C were not part of the South Coast but WERE part of the Central Coast. Their absence cannot be simply an oversight. It is a clear violation of the law. The entire outcome is therefore null and void. damn sure if it was reversed, the enviros would be screaming bloody f***ing hell on this one.

I've said enough. just please know this, when fishermen take the position that "it's not that bad", or "we need some closures", etc., a) there's alot of people here that gave everything they had and then some to keep it "not that bad" and b) you're aiding groups that want to shut fishing down completely. I know alot of the guys here, mostly from the meetings and what not, and you won't find a better group of people anywhere. to have happen to them what happened is a crime. period.

take it or leave it. I'll stake my camp with the guys I fought with.

[bellcon]

Damn Stan,
I wish you were here a year or so ago...
could have saved me a bunch of time, money and frustration...

I'm officially on Stans side now.
He went from being ignorant about the MLPA issue to an expert in less than 24 hours...

I have been mislead by Paul, Chris, Grego, Billy, Tyler, Zenspearo, etc. etc.
oh also Clay and his gaffing dad

I want a few hundred hours and few hundred dollars back...
Rob your the economics professor, figure it out, who do I send the bill to?

I hate being mislead...

[jhook]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

30 seconds in google search turned up this, study of florida MPAs

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/54423.pdf
.

Very weak study. And I'm not the only one who thought so:

Science 15 February 2002:
Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1233 - 1235
DOI: 10.1126/science.295.5558.1233b

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Letters
Marine Reserves and Fisheries Management
In their report "Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries" (30 Nov., p. 1920), C. M. Roberts and co-authors present data indicating that fishery yields have increased in waters adjacent to marine reserves in St. Lucia and east Florida. In many developing island nations like St. Lucia in the Caribbean, fisheries are seriously overexploited, and little or no fisheries management exists. In such cases where marine reserves are the primary means of control of fishing effort and catch, they can result in increased yields compared with a no-management scenario. However, the St. Lucia example is specific to coral reef fisheries and does not prove the global utility of reserves to fisheries.

In contrast to St. Lucia, the recreational fisheries in east Florida are stringently regulated. Currently, the bag limit for red drum is one fish per person, with a slot limit of 18 to 27 inches (~46 to 69 centimeters) long (1). What effect have these regulations had on sizes of red and black drum along the entire east coast of Florida? According to the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, the mean weight of red drum and black drum in east Florida has more than doubled since the 1980s (2). Although the reserves in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge examined by Roberts et al. reportedly have provided trophy-size fish to a limited area outside their boundaries, "traditional" fisheries management has resulted in size increases across the entire fishery. Furthermore, it is estimated that 80 to 90% of reserves have not succeeded in meeting their management objectives, even in coral reef systems (3).

Before implementing new reserves, it would be wise to ask whether a reserve is the best strategy for managing a particular fishery, and how might current reserves be better managed so that they attain their fishery goals.

Mark H. Tupper
University of Guam Marine Laboratory,
UOG Station,
Mangilao, GU 96923, USA.
E-mail: mtupper{at}guam.uog.edu

References and Notes

1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Red Drum Management Plan (Specific Authority Art. IV, Sec. 9, Florida Constitution, chaps. 83-134, Laws of Florida, amended 1991).
2. Data were queried from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey available at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreatio...ies/index.html
3. G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, S. Wells, A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1995); J. Alder, Coastal Manage. 24, 97 (1996); T. McClanahan, Coral Reefs 18, 321 (1999).

The study by C. M. Roberts and colleagues seems little more than a promotional tool for proposed no fishing zones styled as marine reserves. The authors conclude that marine reserves off the southwest coast of St. Lucia and the east coast of Florida have enhanced adjacent fisheries, but such a conclusion is overreaching, given the data they present.

In the latter case, for example, Roberts et al. examined data from the two reserve zones in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge at Cape Canaveral. They conducted seine samples and report that they found more and bigger fish inside the area than outside where fishing was allowed. The study is presented as if the research were current, but no true dates are given for the seining. In fact, the seine samples go back to 1987-89 (1), a period when the fished waters were subjected to wanton commercial gill netting at its peak. In 1995, a Florida constitutional amendment finally banned the gill nets. This reform accompanied numerous new limits on recreational fishing. As a consequence, fish stocks have skyrocketed in the same fished area, as demonstrated in young-fish research projects by the state. So, all that Roberts et al. have shown is that when commercial pressures are curtailed, fish stocks thrive.

The authors bolster their conclusions about the Cape Canaveral marine reserves by listing a number of recreational fishing records supposedly set because of big fish migrating out of the reserves. However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat. In addition, there was a spurt of records along Florida's east coast, largely as the result of line-class categories created by the International Game Fish Association, as well as $1000 awards paid by a line manufacturer. Importantly, many records were set in areas far removed from the reserve areas, including Mosquito Lagoon waters that are separated by land from them.

The real cause of perceived problems in fisheries management is the commercial take-for-profit. There is no justification for banning family-level angling, which is allowed in Yellowstone and Everglades national parks and other fragile areas. Good management does not require draconian prohibitions.

Karl Wickstrom*
Florida Sportsman Magazine,
2700 South Kanner Highway,
Stuart, FL 34994, USA.
E-mail: karl{at}floridasportsman.com

*Founder and Editor-in-Chief

References and notes

1. D. R. Johnson, N. A. Funicelli, J. A. Bohnsack, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19, 436 (1999).

The conclusions by C. M. Roberts and colleagues that the effects of the Soufri`ere Marine Management Area (SMMA) extended beyond its boundaries and that commercial fish yields were increased because of the marine reserve are weak, for two reasons. First, there were no controls in the study and thus there can be no strong evidence for an effect of the experimental treatment. Second, the increase in abundance and catch outside the reserve was far too rapid to have been due to a buildup of a spawning population inside the reserve and export of eggs and larvae.

Regarding the second point, proponents of marine protected areas argue that spawning stock will build up inside reserves and eggs, larvae, and juveniles will then be exported to areas outside the reserves. For this chain of events to happen and for the exported eggs and larvae to grow to sufficient size for fishing would require time. Yet Roberts et al. report that the abundance outside the SMMA increased immediately after its establishment, despite the fact that fishing effort and catch increased outside the reserve. The rapid increase in abundance outside the SMMA could not have been due to increases in spawning stock inside. Alternative explanations for the data include an environmental change, as Roberts et al. suggest, or the effect of the experiment, which involved not only the establishment of the protected area, but "daily patrols by wardens," heightened public awareness, and other factors that could have contributed to improved compliance with existing regulations.

Ray Hilborn
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
E-mail: rayh{at}u.washington.edu


You seem to be a master of the ad hominem attack (e.g. people who might disagree with you are racist, islamaphobic, too stupid too understand the MLPA because they are economists), so I'm awaiting your slander. Perhaps the font I used is sexist?

[robmandel]

a few things, and I will end this.

as for the economists and houses, mostly it was policy, not economists. some argued for creating a housing bubble, but policy did it. I'd explain, but you're better off reading Tom Woods or Bob Murphy.

As for the mpa's, of course if you don't fish an area it's fish populations will increase. that's freaking obvious. don't fish at all, yes, there'll be more fish. but will we get a spillover effect with bass, rock fish, etc.? we simply don't know. we have mpa's already and there's not been documented evidence, in california, on california species. truth is the science wasn't settled.

eco-tourism will not benefit at all from mpa's. there's nothing gonna suddenly appear in five years that isn't there now. that's a moot point. the LJ caves are there and visited. mpa's won't help that. people paddle off the coast on paddleboards and kayaks and what not already. eco-tourism in california is like the whale watching trips. they aren't going to be affected, either way. and yo apparently missed the "undisturbed and unpolluted state" part. eco-tourism would disturb. and it'd be such a small addition which would be far surpassed by all the loss and extra cost.

as for the mpa's addressing other issues, if it falls on local agencies, they're flat broke. if it falls on the state agencies, they're flat broke too. and it leaves too much wiggle room, cf. "to the extent possible". and the mlpa was specifically about closing areas to fishing. period.

it's more than buoys. you're going to create a nightmare of enforcement, unless you want civilian patrols, neighbor turning in neighbor, citizen turning into enviro-police. welcome to the soviet union. and no, that's not hyperbole.

all along, the obvious solution was management. look at what fishermen have done with the white sea bass (not that I'd know, but that's my poor fishing skills!) fishery. or how we've handled the black sea bass. put slot limits, take limits, do C&R, all that. we're fine with that, and will absolutely support that 110%. do you honestly think that the closure people really are concerned with your fishing? do you think they want healthy sustainable fishing? if you do, then you're fooling yourself. I'd use worse, but I'll leave that to your imagination.

the closures were never about any of that, and if you were there, if you went through what we went through, you'd know it. you'd know the malfeasance of the brtf and the hearings. you'd know what the "other side" tried to pull, and even still, was able to get away with. you'd know how the rules (i.e. persistent kelp) were changed, altered, rewritten, etc. you'd know of the behind door dealings on maps (illegal by the way). you'd know how science was specifically thrown out, ignored, or in other cases, modified. but you weren't, and you don't.

there's not a single guy here who doesn't want healthy fish populations, doesn't want to see well managed fisheries. not a single guy here isn't in touch, literally, with water quality and it's impact. not a single guy here doesn't want to work hand in hand with the dfg to manage game, nail poachers, and stop the vast over harvesting by some commercial fishing. oh, and the fact that we were lumped with the commercial fishing, that's another thing.

but the bottom line is still principle. it was an egregious act of abuse by government, taking away livelihoods from some, liberty from all. in any other venue, the newspapers woulda been all over this like stink on shit. it woulda been front page news. but it wasn't even mentioned. it was top to bottom a corrupt, dishonest, and disgusting process, an abuse of power by a government set against its citizens. but you don't know that, or don't care to know.

if our fisheries were in peril, that'd be one thing. but they're not. and what is affecting them is far removed from 3 miles of coastline in malibu or la jolla and can't be corrected by closing them off. and we know they'll be back. the mpa's slated won't solve the problem, and we know that more is coming. we know what they want, what the money is trying to buy, and what the goal is.

healthy fishing isn't their goal. no fishing at all is.

I will fight them as long as I have breath in my lungs.

[Gino]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Well thanks for wasting my time.

Thought you were a reasonable person, but looks like you're one of the zero-conservation extremists that don't give a crap about maintaining our fisheries beyond your own lifetime.

And you'll dismiss any research I bring up, without any logical justification...Other than you don't agree with it.

(Also love your whining about "enviromentalists" telling you what you cannot do when you seemingly complained about "san francisco" judges, ie, Prop 8 getting overturned?)

And Aparently you dont know anything about fish either. You think Fish species sit on the same kelp all there life? maybe blue perch do
Take a hike buddy, Conservation could have been done in other ways, lowering fishing limits, or increasing slot sizes. Not closing down the sections of the ocean to no fishing in general. Fish have tails my friend. Soem of those "kelp Species" can swim a couple miles or more a day.
Thats the point buddy. There is no logical Science behind this MLPA process. alot of the science used in this process had alot of hole in it. There is no threatened fish species along our coast.

Do you know where the 9th circuit court of apeals is? I could have been clearly speaking amongst other things. I said nothing about Prop 8. And it has no buisness in this thread. You brought it up.

When a Gorilla comes to you door and grabs your lunch bag, lets see you have a "Reasonable conversation"... Your clearly some sorta Latte Lifting Enviormetal Lefty. Or some guy just looking to flex his internet testosterone. or both rather.

So spare everyone here the headache and the time and get lost. I was more than willing to answer your questions. And still am if your willing to man up and talk like a big boy.

[Grego]

What the F...seems like the enviros are hunting and fishing around this board AGAIN with this stan man and bmercury login names

[Grego]

Originally Posted by Grego

What the F...seems like the enviros are hunting and fishing around this board AGAIN with this stan man and bmercury login names

Told you sooo....

Lambchopmod, you should delete this guy's comments, he's still happy his posts are going to be up for a long long long time...

[lambadmin]

Originally Posted by Grego

Told you sooo....

Lambchopmod, you should delete this guy's comments, he's still happy his posts are going to be up for a long long long time...

at your service, master Grego

[The Kid]

moderation is good

[Tman]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

What?
All I got so far was
a) we're angry
b) we've been angry a long time now
c) one of us out-argued an elementary school teacher and her students

First of all Stan, or Ken, or Meg, whatever your 'moniker' is, I hope you are not referring to my Son (...c) one of us out-argued an elementary school teacher and her students...).

Had you been there, maybe you were, he did not argue with anyone, he made valid points on his own. You misinterpreted the post that was made and it did sound like you were implying that my Son argued with elders (a teacher, albeit a misguided one at that).

If anything, the only disrespect shown was by Ken Wiseman towards my Son, but I did have a talk with Ken after the 'extensive public input' session.

Or maybe you were at the smurfrider meeting in Encinitas who again insulted a youngster for speaking up for what he believes in.

Funny how a ton of people spoke up for what they believe in, only to get chided by you for their views.

Question for you though Stan...at one of the meetings, I asked the BRTF members directly why it was never considered creating an artificial reef to increase our 'declining' fish population, and was told that there was not a guarantee it would work. How do you know if you don't try? Sure seems the one off San O turned out nice.

So, based on your rants, are you saying that a reef should not be considered, and the only way to increase the population is to go to drastics measures before any other thought is taken into consideration?

Did like one of your comments though...you know, this one...

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Well thanks for wasting my time.

Thought you were a reasonable person, but looks like you're one of the zero-conservation extremists that don't give a crap about maintaining our fisheries beyond your own lifetime.

Take your ball and go home...

Maybe I'll run into ya at Torrey Pines some day...

[Tman]

Stan, you are incredible...the old saying, hook, line, and sinker...let's review and follow this rant... (though we all know at this point it is to no avail...)

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Hey, don't blame me for robs bad wording.
...yea
You guys have this AWESOME selective reading where all your condescending and dismissive crap is ignored
costs money, adds even more things to debate, which areas get it?
If all the proposed MPAs were to get a reef that would cost a lot in materials, ships and just basic planning to servey the sites.
First selective reading and now putting words in my mouth, good work!
Nice threat, and I'm the bad guy.
Makes all your anecdotes of you people being "reasonable" at the meetings realy trustworthy!

First of all, you had bad wording from the get go (think spellcheck).
If you misread Rob's quote, that would be on you. I was merely pointing the obvious facts, had you been there you would have seen it for yourself.

Next....

Also, had you read between the lines, you would have surely noticed the reference of my Son having respect for his elders...hmmm...yet you call Dorado an 'old man'?

Next...

Reefs cost money, more areas to debate? Are you serious? Did you see where the BRTF got to stay, catered lunches, dinners, and do you think they were doing all of that gratis? That serious $ could've been spent elsewhere, oh, gee, maybe increase funding for the DFG?

Now that is a concept. Increase presence, less poachers...sure you have an argument, er, disagreement with that though...

Next...

Selective reading, putting words in your mouth? Wow...denial is not a river in Eqypt. You came on here wanting to be informed of the whole process, folks did their best to enlighten you, yet here, 20 some odd posts later, you are an expert and formulated your own opinion just by doing some research.

Selective reading indeed...

Next...

Nice threat, now you're the bad guy? You came on asking for help to understand this mayhem, it was given, even offered via PM or picking up the phone, you seem to have entirely mislead us of your knowledge and data stored based on how quick your responses were, so now you want to come across as the victim, whoa is me, they are picking on me since I just asked a simple question.

And to touch on that,

It makes our anecdotes of us being "reasonable" at the meetings realy trustworthy?

Stan, check your spelling among other things. We have been reasonable and tolerant of not only this whole process, but you in general.

Not once did we try to deceive you. Talk about trustworthy.

Funny though, knew all along you would not be able to read between the lines.

Respect is earned, not given, and you have clearly demonstrated a lack of respect.

And true to form, you bit...