!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008

[FISHIONADO]

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

ditto

[Grego]

Paul, let me know how I can help. You know I'm familiar with the political process involved, and one route that should be entertained when dealing with the state is through our district representatives.

Unfortunately, I'm not working with any state lobbyist at this time for the City , otherwise I'd have someone to get a little insight. I'm not sure if we can find a nexus between the beach cities and negative effects of the closure to their constituents, but if so, they should be willing to have their state lobbyist investigating those issues and supporting our stance.

Anyhow, give me a call anytime to discuss.

Grego

[PAL]

Great discussion here. I respect the passionate opinions people have taken the time to post.

I call it like I see it. As I've said elsewhere, my goal and that of everyone at the KFACA is to work within the MLPA process to create the best possible outcome for kayak anglers. In earlier action at the Channel Islands and Central California, refusing to participate played right into our opponents' hands. They got almost everything they wanted, and we didn't get a say in the result.

Attacking the MLPA itself is beyond our limited scope and best left to other, better funded and more widely supported organizations.

The aim of the MLPA - a healthier aquatic ecosystem - is something we as recreational anglers should support. It's the implementation that is flawed. It is a rushed, haphazard politically driven system. The word "politically" is in bold italics because it's the key to understanding our situation. Anglers don't have the governor nor the legislature. Our political capital is severely limited; what we as anglers have will be spent carefully and cautiously.

All of the following points can be argued:

The science the MLPA is based on is shaky. It is not tied into conventional marine fisheries management, which has been showing gains in the past years. It is based on population surveys that are arguably inaccurate to the point of insignificance but used none the less. It has a potential to damage marine resources by focusing commercial and angling effort into limited geographic areas. The system has at times been co-opted by various user groups for their personal economic gain. Image has trumped cold, dispassionate fact. It is funded via an MOU from the pro-closure Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation.

EVERY one of the preceding points is irrelevant to our effort to win participation in the Regional Stakeholder's Group for Southern California. Now that I've said it, I'm putting the negatives behind me and moving forward.

YES, we will lose fishing access. NO, it's not time to sell our gear and take up bowling or golf. When the MLPA process has run its course, we'll still be fishing.

So, let's roll up our sleeves, get to work, and make sure our voices are heard in the stakeholder's process. We have to take care of our own business. Allies are great, and we'll work with other user groups where our interests overlap. If we don't stand up for ourselves, I guarantee other stakeholder's will put their needs at the forefront.

[PAL]

A scattershot of comments:

Don't think for a minute that the pro-closure forces won't be comming for La Jolla - and comming hard. Along with identifying our "holy sites", we also need to start thinking about areas we'd be willing to give up - as this appears to be a necessary part of the equation.

LJ and plenty of other key kayak fishing areas. As far as identifying closure areas, in a sense that's what the launch sites project is about. The areas we don't use - from our point of view, great places to put the mandated reserves - will be obvious.

Not sure whether they would consider it or even understand it, but it could be argued that the distance from the (relatively) “shielded” kayak beach launch is something they should be sensitive of... I’m not a lawyer, but I would think you could make a case that we’re being discriminated against?! I don’t know, but playing the discrimination card seems to work in arguing rights discussions.

At times the process has been quite rational. Even in CenCal where kayakers had no stakeholder representation, the network proposals were tweaked in recognition of our short range and limited sheltered access points. The argument still holds force - you bet we'll wield it.

Some things have changed since Brian (Useful Idiot) followed the Channel Islands reserve process. The MLPA is a separate beast, but what he said about the effectiveness of negative public comment remains mostly true. Stakeholders have influence and a vote in the outcome. Public speakers, not so much.

Unfortunately the effectiveness of personal lobbying via meetings with DFG staff has been reduced due to changes in the process. We'll still talk with everyone we can get to listen, including the Fish and Game Commissioners.

It can't be said too many times - we will not carry water for commercial or even other recreational fishing interests at our own expense - we're here to look out for our interests first.

Brian, thanks for the offer of help. Gratefully accepted.

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.

Actually, we've been doing it for years via our tournaments, which I've documented in the sportfishing press since 2005. We can convincingly demonstrate kayak fishing's high participation levels and its relative importance. As far as mainstream press goes, we must carefully avoid negative impressions and focus on the positive.

True that. I'm all for changing the take limits, slot limits and no fish periods for breeding impacts.

UASC continues to work on it. Other sportfishing interests are fighting reduced limits. It takes a long time to change old habits.

I'm not sure if we can find a nexus between the beach cities and negative effects of the closure to their constituents, but if so, they should be willing to have their state lobbyist investigating those issues and supporting our stance.

Grego, consider yourself hired. Local municipalities will influence the shape of MPAs to come. We need your expertise. Thanks and welcome to the team.

FYI - other people with specialized knowledge are welcome to assist in our stakeholder efforts. We're all in this together, and because the MPAs will be spaced no more than 20 miles apart, no stretch of SoCal coastline will be immune.

And finally, please consider that our opponents are watching everything we do, and practice discretion in your postings. Image IS reality for the MLPA decision makers.

[dorado50]

Stop fishing(boycott licenses) because of one persons (angry) idea, thats amazing. Stop speculating and join UNITED ANGLERS.....give them yourself and/or money........

[tylerdurden]

Thanks for keeping us informed Pal. I don't know what to think of it right now, but I am following what is going on and I support UASC.

Even in CenCal where kayakers had no stakeholder representation, the network proposals were tweaked in recognition of our short range and limited sheltered access points.

Good to hear some good news and some precedent that our interests are looked out for.

It can't be said too many times - we will not carry water for commercial or even other recreational fishing interests at our own expense - we're here to look out for our interests first.

Good. Blindly aligning ourselves with commercial or boat based anglers may or may not be in our best interests, as they for sure have very different needs and wants than us.

[Useful Idiot]

The one good thing about the process coming to SD when it has is that we now have plenty of experience to draw off of from the past. We know the approaches that are effective, and which aren't. I very strongly agree that we need to look out for our own interests first and foremost and align with whoever if the situation presents itself. Piggy backing off of a more powerful ally almost certainly backfires at some point along the way.

As kayak fishermen, and even fishermen as a whole, we don't have the resources or power to bitch slap this thing out of our house. All we can do is try to steer it in the right direction. Getting everybody aware of what's coming up is the first step if we're going to have any kind of success with this. Please join UA and KFACA and start spreading the word about this process. The more support we have for our insignificant, low impact faction of users, the better chance we have at working with the system.

And like Paul said, show up to kayak fishing events and meetings of any type to show that we do have true numbers of active kayak fishermen. Political stunts are great for media coverage, but real numbers at tournaments and seminars hold much more meaning for decision makers.

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

I joinied UASC. Talked to Lenny. MLPA meetings for SoCAl are in the spring '08.

angry person.

BTW: for those that have big boats and plan on motoring outside the reserves to areas they can fish:

In addition, there is a particular need to measure changes in recreational and commercial fishing and non-consumptive uses, not only as part of the evaluation of social and economic impacts, but also to determine if displacement of fishing activity is increasing biological impacts outside of MPAs. Further, cost-benefit analysis can give managers a better understanding of the impact of the marine protected area on stakeholders.


you can run, but you can't hide.

[Useful Idiot]

Originally Posted by aguachico

displacement of fishing activity is increasing biological impacts outside of MPAs.

Art, that's one of the fundamental flaws with reserves. It consolidates the fishing pressure elsewhere. Either you close everything or close nothing and manage the overall area with the regulatory system we already have in place. This poka dot of reserves would work great if nobody was fishing in between them, but that's not the case. I doubt fishing will ever be completely shut down, despite some activists wish lists, so this halfway in between system of reserves doesn't help anything. But, with that said, there's nothing we can do about it so we have to work within the system. Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

[Holy Mackerel]

Originally Posted by Useful Idiot

Art, that's one of the fundamental flaws with reserves. It consolidates the fishing pressure elsewhere. Either you close everything or close nothing and manage the overall area with the regulatory system we already have in place. This poka dot of reserves would work great if nobody was fishing in between them, but that's not the case. I doubt fishing will ever be completely shut down, despite some activists wish lists, so this halfway in between system of reserves doesn't help anything. But, with that said, there's nothing we can do about it so we have to work within the system. Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

I couldnt agree more with you guys on this point. Unfortunately, it appears the process does not allow for setting up a sustainable fishery... bummer...

Paul, keep us informed.

Chris

[Jim Sammons LJKF]

Originally Posted by Useful Idiot

Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

My guess is that they will see that it has not worked and will then expand them to cover the entire coast line

[PAL]

The KFACA email addresses have apparently been down for a few days. If you mailed us and it bounced, our apologies. My thanks to Yakrider for letting us know.

Our email is back in business, so please come by the site and join the KFACA. We appreciate your support as we all work together to hang onto our key kayak fishing sites. www.kfaca.org

[Tman]

Here's a thought...if the stakeholders (or shareholders, depending how you look at it) or entities have deep enough pockets to fund this project, why not try something that will be useful and beneficial to the local waters ~ hire on more DFG!

Give them more manpower and equipment to go after the poachers, the ability to keep the 'bigger boats' in check, the resources to keep foreign countries from entering our waters, and make a move to stop trawlers.

I personally do not mind the DFG, and we've all seen news accounts of poaching, or the killing of a protected species, just to have the guilty get a slap on the wrist. And inevitably, one comment that always stands out is how the DFG doesn't have enough manpower. Maybe they should first address that issue.

Then, for good measure, throw in what Hubbs has been doing. I remember when it was a very rare day to hear of a WSB catch. Now look at what's in the counts, esp out of LJ's waters.

And, is there some loophole we can use, since LJ already has an area that is protected?

Just some thoughts, welcome the replies, maybe I am missing something...

[Useful Idiot]

Originally Posted by Tman

Here's a thought...if the stakeholders (or shareholders, depending how you look at it) or entities have deep enough pockets to fund this project, why not try something that will be useful and beneficial to the local waters ~ hire on more DFG!

Give them more manpower and equipment to go after the poachers, the ability to keep the 'bigger boats' in check, the resources to keep foreign countries from entering our waters, and make a move to stop trawlers.

I personally do not mind the DFG, and we've all seen news accounts of poaching, or the killing of a protected species, just to have the guilty get a slap on the wrist. And inevitably, one comment that always stands out is how the DFG doesn't have enough manpower. Maybe they should first address that issue.

Then, for good measure, throw in what Hubbs has been doing. I remember when it was a very rare day to hear of a WSB catch. Now look at what's in the counts, esp out of LJ's waters.

And, is there some loophole we can use, since LJ already has an area that is protected?

Just some thoughts, welcome the replies, maybe I am missing something...

In my experience with the process, arguments such as this were brought up quite often but nobody really wanted to hear it. The process is to determine where to place marine reserves, whether or not they're justified. Arguing for better enforcement or stricter reg's is not what this process is for. That's a whole different battle in itself, which had it been done years ago perhaps could have avoided this whole mess. To get the MLPA process stopped and turned in the direction of reg's and enforcement would be a monumental legal task that all of our fishing org's resources put together still couldn't accomplish.

I completely agree that reserves aren't as effective as traditional management techniques and that we'd be better served to focus on enforcement and research to better govern individual species, but it doesn't matter. We're here to deal with the MLPA no-take reserves and make sure it's done fairly and intelligently. Arguing against reserves in general will fall on deaf ears not only for the decision makers, but our own representatives as well. It will happen, it's up to us to have a say in what happens.

And La Jolla having an existing reserve is a very bad thing because they will almost definitely want to expand that. It's a lot easier to expand existing reserves, especially if there's some sort of record of success, such as the huge number of fish being caught right outside of it every day. Whether there's yellowtail and white seabass at La Jolla has anything to do with that reserve is highly debatable, but you can bet your bottom dollar the pro-reserve activists will argue that.

[psudocromis]

No love from Arnold....


Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns
regarding Marine Life Protection Act. I appreciate hearing from fellow
Californians about important issues facing our State.

California continues to thrive because of the involvement and
commitment of people like you. While we may disagree on certain policies, we
share the goals of improving the quality of life in our State and
expanding opportunities for all Californians.

Again, thank you for taking the time to email and share your comments.
Your participation will help us restore the greatness of our Golden
State.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Handymansd]

Originally Posted by psudocromis

No love from Arnold....

Wow, talk about a lame form letter!! I am nowhere near a politician, but even I could have come up with a better "P.C." dismissal than that!

[aguachico]

The capacity of the California Department of Fish and Game and other state agencies must be further enhanced to ensure successful implementation of the MLPA and other marine policies. Budget appropriations in 2006 provide an increased budget for DFG, but needed human resources must be developed, and additional budget increases will be required as subsequent study regions are completed. The MLPA Initiative report Estimated Long-Term Costs to Implement the Marine Life Protection Act (April 2006) provides a useful basis for discussion of needed budget increases. As the California Department of Parks and Recreation and State Water Resources Control Board also have roles in implementing the MLPA, attention should be given to ensuring that they also have resources needed to implement the MLPA.