Arnie and his enviro cronies screwed us--AGAIN - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

steveooo · 09-29-2010, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveooo

If those beaches that you caught your Corbie and PB Leopard on were in danger of being put on the "No Fishing" list, would you speak up to fight for them Stan? If you actually spoke up to save them, and then found out what you care about doesn't really matter to those running this process, would that frustrate you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan K G

The beaches were on the block in earlier proposals, it would have sucked, but we have hundreds of MILES of great fishing beach up and down the coast and I know several great spots. I don't get emotionallly attached to a section of beach...lets me move around to find good fishing rather than get stuck if a beach is having a bad week.

So what you are saying is that you would just bend over and take it in the ass, while they took your fishing spots from you?
My guess is that this is not the first time you have bent over to take something in the A--

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Try dana point, it's supposed to be great from reports I've seen

Welcome to the board Stan, I fish Dana a good amount. Its decent there. I hope to fish with you one day there,

Bring your fly rod and your busted fishfinder.
Seriously....

For the record, Steveooo was in on this thread before it was locked 2x

The Kid · 09-29-2010, 10:14 PM

Let me make this statement. From the time that the MLPA was dug back up from the dust covered shelves in the capital, and brought back to haunt the this generation of fisherman I have always been curious as to why the first course of action to encourage growth rates of pelagics, such as yellowtail, would not be taken into consideration before a complete closure was deemed the best option. The top option that should have and maybe or maybe not considered is to limit the keep of such species. For example in the white seabass restoration project, which I am sure you know about, is the perfect example for a successful restoration project. There is an obvious boom in populations presently and if you dont believe me heres some numbers for you page 33(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/wsfmp/pdfs/wsfmp.pdf). If the take was restricted and length limits or slot limits were enforced would that not allowing for adequate breeding aged fish, boosting fish populations simply by increasing a certain species biomass in any ecosystem.
Is that not a valid reason to question the MLPA? To go to the most extreme restriction while spending 30 -40 million dollars a year to fund this program isn't that strange as well. Our government is corrupted there is no doubt about that. Who is getting the short end of the stick? The fisherman who are out there for sport while at the same time using the resources given them for their family who are spending their days stuck making enough to buy a kayak while keeping their family safe and have enough money to send off to our politicians who are are making this country more and more in debt with each breathe I take. Some of us don't make the same amount of money as are "trusted" politicians. So who in this day and age has the swing in the vote. If I stepped up to a podium at the capital and said my peace and during my speech Sigourney Weaver shakes her head in disagreement who is going to have the greater influence. Now to say this analogy is absurd is false in several meetings this is exactly what is going on. With many members appointed in the regional stakeholder group (RSG), a science advisory team (SAT), the California Department of Fish and Game, MLPA Initiative staff, the public and a policy-level blue ribbon task force (BRTF) simply in their head passing off fisherman public comments because they don't have a fancy title to show importance. So I ask you MLPA supporters, in this debate what is fair? To shut off local saltwater fishing (the productive areas of course), or to limit it. Both we assume to have the same results the only concern is time. Sure it may take longer, but if you keep both sides happy is not more productive than pleasing one side and having anarchy and resentment within your community?

09-29-2010, 10:14 PM	#2
The Kid Loves Surface Irons Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Diego Posts: 455	Let me make this statement. From the time that the MLPA was dug back up from the dust covered shelves in the capital, and brought back to haunt the this generation of fisherman I have always been curious as to why the first course of action to encourage growth rates of pelagics, such as yellowtail, would not be taken into consideration before a complete closure was deemed the best option. The top option that should have and maybe or maybe not considered is to limit the keep of such species. For example in the white seabass restoration project, which I am sure you know about, is the perfect example for a successful restoration project. There is an obvious boom in populations presently and if you dont believe me heres some numbers for you page 33(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/wsfmp/pdfs/wsfmp.pdf). If the take was restricted and length limits or slot limits were enforced would that not allowing for adequate breeding aged fish, boosting fish populations simply by increasing a certain species biomass in any ecosystem. Is that not a valid reason to question the MLPA? To go to the most extreme restriction while spending 30 -40 million dollars a year to fund this program isn't that strange as well. Our government is corrupted there is no doubt about that. Who is getting the short end of the stick? The fisherman who are out there for sport while at the same time using the resources given them for their family who are spending their days stuck making enough to buy a kayak while keeping their family safe and have enough money to send off to our politicians who are are making this country more and more in debt with each breathe I take. Some of us don't make the same amount of money as are "trusted" politicians. So who in this day and age has the swing in the vote. If I stepped up to a podium at the capital and said my peace and during my speech Sigourney Weaver shakes her head in disagreement who is going to have the greater influence. Now to say this analogy is absurd is false in several meetings this is exactly what is going on. With many members appointed in the regional stakeholder group (RSG), a science advisory team (SAT), the California Department of Fish and Game, MLPA Initiative staff, the public and a policy-level blue ribbon task force (BRTF) simply in their head passing off fisherman public comments because they don't have a fancy title to show importance. So I ask you MLPA supporters, in this debate what is fair? To shut off local saltwater fishing (the productive areas of course), or to limit it. Both we assume to have the same results the only concern is time. Sure it may take longer, but if you keep both sides happy is not more productive than pleasing one side and having anarchy and resentment within your community? Last edited by The Kid; 09-29-2010 at 10:45 PM.