!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008 - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

madscientist · 12-12-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgax65

While I recognize that kayak anglers need to have our special requirements addressed in the MLPA process; I feel that it would be counterproductive to start the process by promoting positions that will exclude non-kayak anglers in certain areas. The kayak community is but a small portion of the overall fishing community. Alienating 95% of the fishing population with exclusionary proposals is not going to get our needs addressed. We need to go into this process with a united front; all anglers fighting for maximum access. I would only advocate a non-motorized reserve in La Jolla if it was the final alternative to a complete closure.

I disagree. I doubt we would alienate any but a very small fraction, and so what if we did. For the most part, they don't care about kayakers (speedbumps, as they call us). Besides, many of the boaters I know focus exclusively on offshore species, so they couldn't care less about LJ. The main point I am trying to make is that adding our voices to the general angling crowd is to be the equivalent of Luxembourg in the EU. The needs and goals of the kayak community are very different than those of the sportboats, who want to continue their 1000 bass weekend fish counts. The kneejerk adversarial reaction to the "treehuggers" is not necessarily the best way to go, and the track record of the fishing associations is pretty dismal, from what I hear.

FISHIONADO · 12-14-2007, 05:40 AM

Who would have thought the NYT's would run this story. Too bad there is not a Yellowtail suburban overpopulation problem. This is not kayak related but is something to consider in arguments to MLPA. My main motivation for fishing La Jolla is "fresh local meat".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/op...th&oref=slogin

By STEVEN RINELLA
Published: December 14, 2007

EVERY year, 15 million licensed hunters head into America’s forests and fields in search of wild game. In New York State alone, roughly half a million hunters harvest around 190,000 deer in the fall deer hunting season — that’s close to eight million pounds of venison. In the traditional vernacular, we’d call that “game meat.” But, in keeping with the times, it might be better to relabel it as free-range, grass-fed, organic, locally produced, locally harvested, sustainable, native, low-stress, low-impact, humanely slaughtered meat.

That string of adjectives has been popularized in recent years by the various food-awareness movements, particularly “localism.” Like many popular social movements, localism’s rallying cry is one of well-founded disgust: the average American meal travels 1,500 miles from field to fork, consuming untold gallons of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels along the way.

As a remedy, so-called locavores encourage a diet coming from one’s own “foodshed” — usually within 100 or 300 miles of home. The rationale of localism is promoted in popular books and Web sites: it leads to a healthier lifestyle and diet; brings money to rural communities; promotes eating meat from animals that are able to “carry out their natural behaviors” and “eat a natural diet”; allows consumers to visit the places where their food is raised; supports the production of foods that have fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides; and it keeps us in touch with the seasons.

While those sound suspiciously similar to the reasons many Americans choose to hunt, the literature of localism neglects the management and harvest of wildlife. This is a shame, because hunters are the original locavores. When I was growing up in Michigan, my family ate three or four deer every year, along with rabbits, squirrel, ducks and grouse that were harvested mostly within eight miles of our house.

I carried that subsistence aesthetic into adulthood. During my first semester away at college, for instance, my brother and I killed four deer on land that was 11 miles from campus; we never purchased a pound of industrially raised meat. We’d gone local and organic before anyone thought to put those two words together in a sentence.

Nowadays, however, with Vice President Dick Cheney blasting a donor in the face while shooting pen-raised quail, and the former rock star Ted Nugent extolling his “whack ’em and stack ’em” hunting ethos, American hunters do not have a very lofty pedestal from which to defend their interests. We could gain a great deal by refocusing the debate onto our relationship with a sustainable, healthful food supply.

There’s an obvious place to start: Even most nonhunters are aware of the deer overabundance in suburban areas. Annually, whitetail deer cause $250 million in residential landscaping damage; deer-vehicle collisions injure 29,000 people and kill 1.5 million deer; and 13,000 Americans contract Lyme disease.

State and federal wildlife management agencies contend that public hunting is the only cost-effective long-term management strategy. Yet they are forced to experiment with costly deer-control measures like high-wire fencing (it can cost $10,000 to $15,000 per mile), infertility drugs ($550 per deer), police sharpshooters ($100 to $250 per deer)and trap-and-euthanize operations ($150 to $500 per deer).

Why? Invariably, the answer comes down to a handful of factors: landowner aesthetics, liability concerns, social attitudes about guns, firearm-discharge restrictions and states’ public-relations concerns. Or, in short, because of tensions between hunters and the public.

While many people will never give up their opposition to killing Bambi, others may change their minds when they realize that destroying a deer’s reproductive abilities or relying on the automobile for population control is really no less wasteful than tossing fresh produce into a landfill.

Maintaining the ability to cull semi-rural and suburban deer herds is just one of many struggles facing hunters today, along with battling land development on wintering grounds, limiting oil exploration in our last wilderness strongholds of Alaska and combating the introduction of livestock diseases into wild animal herds in the Midwest. But an emphasis on resort-based quail shooting and whack-’em lingo are not going to persuade the critics.

Hunters need to push a new public image based on deeper traditions: we are stewards of the land, hunting on ground that we know and love, collecting indigenous, environmentally sustainable food for ourselves and our families.

Steven Rinella is the author of “The Scavenger’s Guide to Haute Cuisine” and the forthcoming “American Buffalo: In Search of a Lost Icon.”

aguachico · 12-14-2007, 07:09 AM

I'm not trying to "rain on everyone's parade" and I'm willing to join the cause to help keep LaJOlla open - but we are forgetting that the MPA's were bought and paid for by PRIVATE funding to schwarzenegger's fund.

The MPA's died when CA's budgets died. Private funding means whatever the buyer wants, the buyer gets. The kelp beds of SoCAl are history to fishing.

My suggestion is to "SHOW ME THE MONEY" I call every angler in CA to not buy a fishing license for as many years the MPLA's are in affect. At $30-40 million per year, this should send a strong message how serious we are to these junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist. Collect as much of these revenues yearly and create a PAC to buy the fishing grounds back.

Money talks.

Are you willing to give up fising in CA for a few years? I am. I'll take my $40 and give it to the PAC. Fuck the DFG, how long will they stay in business without your $$$?

Let's do it!!!

Let's take 50-60% of this:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdff...sales_10yr.pdf

madscientist · 12-14-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aguachico

The MPA's died when CA's budgets died. Private funding means whatever the buyer wants, the buyer gets. The kelp beds of SoCAl are history to fishing.

I tend to agree, that's why I think our only hope is to try to convince the buyer that kayak fishing is what they want.

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.

FISHIONADO · 12-14-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aguachico

we are to these junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist. Collect as much of these revenues yearly and create a PAC to buy the fishing grounds back.

Be careful what you ask for. I just returned from Hong Kong where there were no junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist for many years and now they have zero sport fishing. They lost all their grouper, sharks, and rays. An "East Coast Whopper" there is less than an ounce. Now they are begging for the junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist to bail them out. I agree with you mostly Art, but I don't think the answer is at either of the extremes.

aguachico · 12-14-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

Be careful what you ask for. I just returned from Hong Kong where there were no junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist for many years and now they have zero sport fishing. They lost all their grouper, sharks, and rays. An "East Coast Whopper" there is less than an ounce. Now they are begging for the junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist to bail them out. I agree with you mostly Art, but I don't think the answer is at either of the extremes.

True that. I'm all for changing the take limits, slot limits and no fish periods for breeding impacts. If you give the California liberal a fucking inch, they'll take your arm, pickup and incandescent bulb in one bite.

I'd love to set an resident inshore limit to two fish, but we(fisherman) need to set those parameters - not Peter PETA.

So if we create a PAC to funnel the DFG's $66million into. We'd only have to give up fishing for a few years. Take up golf. We can cripple their budget and department. Then we need to put someone into office that will look after our interests. Then instead of buyging $20 worth of useless tackle every month, we get the one million anglers to donate that money to the PAC and keep on fishing. Look at the unions - they know what side the bread is buttered.

Imagine the impact we could have on CA if we gave it up for two years. The sportfishing industry, tackle shops and related businesses would suffer, but if they want long term growth, they need a short time sacrifice.

Let's get it together and get a booth at the Fred Hall. We can start the campaign for no licenses for '09, '10.

FISHIONADO · 12-14-2007, 12:29 PM

Count me in. If they close La Jolla I have no use for a license anyway.

aguachico · 12-14-2007, 01:08 PM

That's what I'm talking about.

What about posting a poll on the major fishing boards in CA and get a consensus of how many people wopuld be for or against this idea.

We could shape the way the reserves and regualtions are designed. This could be a mini version of the "equal rights movement" in the 21st century.

We could have bad ass bumper stickers all over the state.

"hands off my $100 million" for the low-key version
"Will fish for $100 million"
"FUCK OFF Schwarzenegger" is the going on my truck.

I'm going to do some research on the private funding, just to have ammo on who to blame.

stand-by

Handymansd · 12-14-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

Count me in. If they close La Jolla I have no use for a license anyway.

Ditto that for me too!!

If they do close La Jolla, I will have to get that damn Mokai, to get to where I can fish!

wbrewski · 03-01-2009, 08:55 AM

Has anyone though of bring a class action law suit against the these people for infringing on our constutional rights ( life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ).

12-14-2007, 07:09 AM	#3
aguachico Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 719	I'm not trying to "rain on everyone's parade" and I'm willing to join the cause to help keep LaJOlla open - but we are forgetting that the MPA's were bought and paid for by PRIVATE funding to schwarzenegger's fund. The MPA's died when CA's budgets died. Private funding means whatever the buyer wants, the buyer gets. The kelp beds of SoCAl are history to fishing. My suggestion is to "SHOW ME THE MONEY" I call every angler in CA to not buy a fishing license for as many years the MPLA's are in affect. At $30-40 million per year, this should send a strong message how serious we are to these junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist. Collect as much of these revenues yearly and create a PAC to buy the fishing grounds back. Money talks. Are you willing to give up fising in CA for a few years? I am. I'll take my $40 and give it to the PAC. Fuck the DFG, how long will they stay in business without your $$$? Let's do it!!! Let's take 50-60% of this: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdff...sales_10yr.pdf Last edited by aguachico; 12-14-2007 at 07:28 AM.

12-14-2007, 05:40 AM	#2
FISHIONADO Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 698	Who would have thought the NYT's would run this story. Too bad there is not a Yellowtail suburban overpopulation problem. This is not kayak related but is something to consider in arguments to MLPA. My main motivation for fishing La Jolla is "fresh local meat". http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/op...th&oref=slogin By STEVEN RINELLA Published: December 14, 2007 EVERY year, 15 million licensed hunters head into America’s forests and fields in search of wild game. In New York State alone, roughly half a million hunters harvest around 190,000 deer in the fall deer hunting season — that’s close to eight million pounds of venison. In the traditional vernacular, we’d call that “game meat.” But, in keeping with the times, it might be better to relabel it as free-range, grass-fed, organic, locally produced, locally harvested, sustainable, native, low-stress, low-impact, humanely slaughtered meat. That string of adjectives has been popularized in recent years by the various food-awareness movements, particularly “localism.” Like many popular social movements, localism’s rallying cry is one of well-founded disgust: the average American meal travels 1,500 miles from field to fork, consuming untold gallons of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels along the way. As a remedy, so-called locavores encourage a diet coming from one’s own “foodshed” — usually within 100 or 300 miles of home. The rationale of localism is promoted in popular books and Web sites: it leads to a healthier lifestyle and diet; brings money to rural communities; promotes eating meat from animals that are able to “carry out their natural behaviors” and “eat a natural diet”; allows consumers to visit the places where their food is raised; supports the production of foods that have fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides; and it keeps us in touch with the seasons. While those sound suspiciously similar to the reasons many Americans choose to hunt, the literature of localism neglects the management and harvest of wildlife. This is a shame, because hunters are the original locavores. When I was growing up in Michigan, my family ate three or four deer every year, along with rabbits, squirrel, ducks and grouse that were harvested mostly within eight miles of our house. I carried that subsistence aesthetic into adulthood. During my first semester away at college, for instance, my brother and I killed four deer on land that was 11 miles from campus; we never purchased a pound of industrially raised meat. We’d gone local and organic before anyone thought to put those two words together in a sentence. Nowadays, however, with Vice President Dick Cheney blasting a donor in the face while shooting pen-raised quail, and the former rock star Ted Nugent extolling his “whack ’em and stack ’em” hunting ethos, American hunters do not have a very lofty pedestal from which to defend their interests. We could gain a great deal by refocusing the debate onto our relationship with a sustainable, healthful food supply. There’s an obvious place to start: Even most nonhunters are aware of the deer overabundance in suburban areas. Annually, whitetail deer cause $250 million in residential landscaping damage; deer-vehicle collisions injure 29,000 people and kill 1.5 million deer; and 13,000 Americans contract Lyme disease. State and federal wildlife management agencies contend that public hunting is the only cost-effective long-term management strategy. Yet they are forced to experiment with costly deer-control measures like high-wire fencing (it can cost $10,000 to $15,000 per mile), infertility drugs ($550 per deer), police sharpshooters ($100 to $250 per deer)and trap-and-euthanize operations ($150 to $500 per deer). Why? Invariably, the answer comes down to a handful of factors: landowner aesthetics, liability concerns, social attitudes about guns, firearm-discharge restrictions and states’ public-relations concerns. Or, in short, because of tensions between hunters and the public. While many people will never give up their opposition to killing Bambi, others may change their minds when they realize that destroying a deer’s reproductive abilities or relying on the automobile for population control is really no less wasteful than tossing fresh produce into a landfill. Maintaining the ability to cull semi-rural and suburban deer herds is just one of many struggles facing hunters today, along with battling land development on wintering grounds, limiting oil exploration in our last wilderness strongholds of Alaska and combating the introduction of livestock diseases into wild animal herds in the Midwest. But an emphasis on resort-based quail shooting and whack-’em lingo are not going to persuade the critics. Hunters need to push a new public image based on deeper traditions: we are stewards of the land, hunting on ground that we know and love, collecting indigenous, environmentally sustainable food for ourselves and our families. Steven Rinella is the author of “The Scavenger’s Guide to Haute Cuisine” and the forthcoming “American Buffalo: In Search of a Lost Icon.”

12-14-2007, 12:29 PM	#7
FISHIONADO Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 698	Count me in. If they close La Jolla I have no use for a license anyway.

12-14-2007, 01:08 PM	#8
aguachico Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 719	That's what I'm talking about. What about posting a poll on the major fishing boards in CA and get a consensus of how many people wopuld be for or against this idea. We could shape the way the reserves and regualtions are designed. This could be a mini version of the "equal rights movement" in the 21st century. We could have bad ass bumper stickers all over the state. "hands off my $100 million" for the low-key version "Will fish for $100 million" "FUCK OFF Schwarzenegger" is the going on my truck. I'm going to do some research on the private funding, just to have ammo on who to blame. stand-by

03-01-2009, 08:55 AM	#10
wbrewski Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Santa Ana Posts: 334	Has anyone though of bring a class action law suit against the these people for infringing on our constutional rights ( life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ).