MLPA isn't coming to So. Cal. ! ! ! - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Holy Mackerel · 05-21-2008, 08:18 AM

Done, was pretty easy... I know this is a start, but everyone keeps saying the MLPA is here, but do not say what we can concretely do (other than this survey) to get involved to be proactive in this process... This is not a knock, I you guys are working hard, and this is a strange process from reading the NORCAL MPLA process on spearbaord, but hopefully more info from our representatives will start to filter out on how we can help. Again, thanks to the guys standing up to represent us in this process!

chris

wavster · 05-21-2008, 08:24 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that when fishing spots are
divulged, the MLPA will analyze the reason for that. Simply stated,
people don't normally fish where there aren't any fish.

That being said, it seems to me that they would then use those
spots as a basis to setup closures because that's where it's believed the fish are.

Just thinking out loud...

Mike McFann · 05-21-2008, 08:36 AM

Done.

If our freinds to the north who went throught the process are promoting this. I have to trust them as I don't have any info to the contrary.

Corey · 05-21-2008, 08:44 AM

OK, I signed up. Thaks to Jim, Paul, Greg, & Steve for representing our interests.

Grego · 05-21-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavster

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that when fishing spots are
divulged, the MLPA will analyze the reason for that. Simply stated,
people don't normally fish where there aren't any fish.

That being said, it seems to me that they would then use those
spots as a basis to setup closures because that's where it's believed the fish are.

Just thinking out loud...

My thoughts initially also, as well as every representative from the different associations that attended. The process of selecting MPA's actually depends on knowing those areas so that they can be defended. It would be difficult to make a stance and argument to keep a certain place open if there's no data to back it up.

A very simplistic example.....nobody says they fish LJ kelp with the intent of keeping it off the radar, so the scientist and consultants say "great" cuz that's a recorded area of known breeding and feeding (additionally supported by the reserve already in place) so since no one is against it, let's enlarge it and close it off and everyone will be happy.

I'm not going to go into detail on any matter. Paul is our lead and I'm going to let him discuss issues and concerns when he's prepared. There were handouts that I'm sure Paul will be posting on his site for everyone to view. Fishing grounds WILL BE LOST, that's the fact jack. How much and where is the question, your support will help Paul gain a seat on the stakeholders group where our input can make a difference in influencing the how much and where.

PAL · 05-21-2008, 09:56 AM

Hey guys, glad you are engaged on this topic.

We're working behind the scenes with Ecotrust on a couple of issues with the survey methodology. The organization seems responsive to our concerns. I think its likely we'll get at least some of the changes we are requesting.

Grego gave an excellent explaination of the importance of participating and providing good information. The point was backed up by fishing folk, veterans of the process, who travelled from Cen and NorCal to strongly encourage us to work with Ecotrust. We don't know Ecotrust; we know and trust people like Sean White of NCKA, Ben Sleeter of Coastside, etc.

Anyone is welcome to call me on MLPA issues. Drop me a PM your phone number. I'll get back to you ASAP.

Paul

glenniesan · 05-21-2008, 10:25 AM

I appreciate your guys' efforts in preserving our interests as anglers as well as our resources!

What can I as an individual do to be more involved? Is there a link to the web-survey? Keep up the good work Paul & co!

Useful Idiot · 05-26-2008, 08:40 AM

I attended the ecotrust meeting in La Jolla a couple weeks ago with Jim Sammons. I was very involved with the channel islands process a few years back, and this ecotrust process is a very good thing. It's a weapon we didn't have back then.

The MLPA process is a big game of give and take. Usually both sides come out at extremes and eventually a few reasonable individuals sit down and hammer out something that works for both sides, but not after a lot of blood, sweat and tears throughout the process. Some of our fishing spots are likely to coincide with the enviro's prime habitat spots, but there will also be habitat that isn't prime fishing grounds and vice versa, so there's room to "make a deal" with other interest groups. The ecotrust process is the process by which value (economic mostly) is placed on each of our fishing spots. So for example if La Jolla is determined as one of the major spots of socio-economic importance, the enviros would likely have to give up quite a bit elsewhere if they propose a closure with that much impact.

That's why it's important for everyone to give their input in this ecotrust process. The more real numbers determined by this process, the harder it will be to close those areas. Grego is completely right. Remaining silent is the worst thing we could do because it will show up in the report as low socio-economic impact and be easier to close. Even if the enviro groups target only fishermen's favorite spots to fish (which is not the point of the MLPA process...) if La Jolla is determined to have a $100 billion impact a year, it's not closing... This is the CA government we're talking about...

(btw- in the channel islands process all socio-economic impact numbers were determined by an assigned economist with no mention of methods, credentials or loyalties... I like this way better...)

TheSherThang · 05-29-2008, 01:42 AM

Joined UA at the Fred Hall show. Let me know when the online survey is ready and I'll be there ready and filling haha.

05-21-2008, 08:24 AM	#2
wavster Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Encinitas Posts: 562	Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that when fishing spots are divulged, the MLPA will analyze the reason for that. Simply stated, people don't normally fish where there aren't any fish. That being said, it seems to me that they would then use those spots as a basis to setup closures because that's where it's believed the fish are. Just thinking out loud... __________________

05-21-2008, 08:44 AM	#4
Corey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: ...waaaay out there Posts: 794	OK, I signed up. Thaks to Jim, Paul, Greg, & Steve for representing our interests. __________________

05-26-2008, 08:40 AM	#8
Useful Idiot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 286	I attended the ecotrust meeting in La Jolla a couple weeks ago with Jim Sammons. I was very involved with the channel islands process a few years back, and this ecotrust process is a very good thing. It's a weapon we didn't have back then. The MLPA process is a big game of give and take. Usually both sides come out at extremes and eventually a few reasonable individuals sit down and hammer out something that works for both sides, but not after a lot of blood, sweat and tears throughout the process. Some of our fishing spots are likely to coincide with the enviro's prime habitat spots, but there will also be habitat that isn't prime fishing grounds and vice versa, so there's room to "make a deal" with other interest groups. The ecotrust process is the process by which value (economic mostly) is placed on each of our fishing spots. So for example if La Jolla is determined as one of the major spots of socio-economic importance, the enviros would likely have to give up quite a bit elsewhere if they propose a closure with that much impact. That's why it's important for everyone to give their input in this ecotrust process. The more real numbers determined by this process, the harder it will be to close those areas. Grego is completely right. Remaining silent is the worst thing we could do because it will show up in the report as low socio-economic impact and be easier to close. Even if the enviro groups target only fishermen's favorite spots to fish (which is not the point of the MLPA process...) if La Jolla is determined to have a $100 billion impact a year, it's not closing... This is the CA government we're talking about... (btw- in the channel islands process all socio-economic impact numbers were determined by an assigned economist with no mention of methods, credentials or loyalties... I like this way better...) __________________

05-21-2008, 08:18 AM	#1
Holy Mackerel Señor member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,627	Done, was pretty easy... I know this is a start, but everyone keeps saying the MLPA is here, but do not say what we can concretely do (other than this survey) to get involved to be proactive in this process... This is not a knock, I you guys are working hard, and this is a strange process from reading the NORCAL MPLA process on spearbaord, but hopefully more info from our representatives will start to filter out on how we can help. Again, thanks to the guys standing up to represent us in this process! chris

05-21-2008, 08:36 AM	#3
Mike McFann Junior Join Date: May 2007 Location: Orange Posts: 24	Done. If our freinds to the north who went throught the process are promoting this. I have to trust them as I don't have any info to the contrary.

05-21-2008, 09:56 AM	#6
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	Hey guys, glad you are engaged on this topic. We're working behind the scenes with Ecotrust on a couple of issues with the survey methodology. The organization seems responsive to our concerns. I think its likely we'll get at least some of the changes we are requesting. Grego gave an excellent explaination of the importance of participating and providing good information. The point was backed up by fishing folk, veterans of the process, who travelled from Cen and NorCal to strongly encourage us to work with Ecotrust. We don't know Ecotrust; we know and trust people like Sean White of NCKA, Ben Sleeter of Coastside, etc. Anyone is welcome to call me on MLPA issues. Drop me a PM your phone number. I'll get back to you ASAP. Paul

05-21-2008, 10:25 AM	#7
glenniesan Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: San Marcos Posts: 37	I appreciate your guys' efforts in preserving our interests as anglers as well as our resources! What can I as an individual do to be more involved? Is there a link to the web-survey? Keep up the good work Paul & co!

05-29-2008, 01:42 AM	#9
TheSherThang Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 82	Joined UA at the Fred Hall show. Let me know when the online survey is ready and I'll be there ready and filling haha.