MLPA INFORMATION

[PAL]

"Our guys" on the stakeholder board aren't even allowed to criticize the process without fear of being kicked off of the stakeholder's group, at least that is my understanding of the situation, isn't that in itself a violation of freedom of speech? And everytime I have asked anyone who is involved they get that look of a the little kid who just got his skateboard stolen by a bully. So somehow I think we as a group need to start possibly looking at ways to protect our rights as fisherman.

I LOVE this turn of phrase. Very effectively put. With that out of the way, I'll reiterate what MJ and I are working to accomplish with the MLPA. Simply put, its to ensure impacts on kayak anglers are not overlooked and / or we're not victimized or targeted by larger, more powerful interests.

We're engaged at working within the process, with the belief that it will go forward with or without us. Please note that SAC, UASC, RFA, and many if not all the commercial fishing advocacy groups evidently share our opinion, as they are right there on the RSG too.

I know it looks bad, but as one of the commercial guys said to me, "I'm not going to participate in cutting my own throat." The meaning? We wouldn't be at the table if there were nothing to gain. Otherwise, we'd walk.

I say again, 5 of the 9 proposals in for analysis are fishing-friendly. That beats hell out of zero.

A few more points. The MLPA has little to do with fisheries management. It is a habitat protection plan plain and simple. It will do little to benefit highly mobile species such as yellowtail and white seabass; this is really about the reefs, rockfish, bass, the lobsters and other invertebrates that scurry along the bottom.

Money: MJ and I are not taking money from outside special interests (the RLFF). But so far we're ok; we have a budget of kayak-angler dollars we can dip into if needed to put gas in the tank.

Timing: assuming the current schedule, the BRTF will choose a prefered alternative in Oct or Nov. The Fish and Game Commission will kick it around for another 6 months or so, possibly longer, before finalizing things. Even then, we'll get another several to enjoy the places destined for closure. I think we're roughly two years off at this point.

Paul

[Billy V]

Originally Posted by PAL

A few more points. The MLPA has little to do with fisheries management. It is a habitat protection plan plain and simple. It will do little to benefit highly mobile species such as yellowtail and white seabass; this is really about the reefs, rockfish, bass, the lobsters and other invertebrates that scurry along the bottom.

This is exactly why most of us logical people are ticked off.
-The Fish and Game can achieve their objective by imposing Limits on desired species.
I do not see the advantage of blanket closures.

[PAL]

This is exactly why most of us logical people are ticked off.
-The Fish and Game can achieve their objective by imposing Limits on desired species. I do not see the advantage of blanket closures.

I can answer this one; it comes up again and again from the other side.

For the intrinsic value of natural ecosystems, in theory untouched by human disturbance.

You can look most of the time, but touch, never. Except for scientific collecting of course, but we want that. Can't have adaptive management without scientific monitoring.