What are the Dec 16th MLPA results?

[PAL]

^No, that's not quite right.

Unfortunately, each one of those blue areas can have different rules.

Some are virtually the same as reserves, allowing only things such as sewage outlet maintenance and sampling.

Others, like the one over Scripps Pier, allow some fishing. Crucially for us, we can fish bait there. That didn't happen by accident. We battled for it.

[blackcloud9]

@Aaron The buoys are piled on top of each other at the La Jolla Cove
boundary, San Diego Bay commercial boundary, and the Santa Monica
Bay commercial boundary. Are they there by accident?

It took me 5 minutes to google this up.

http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/Students/Curren...llEtAl2007.pdf

From page 36,

"The last important pattern is that fishing is concentrated near the western edge
of the Reserve. This area has good lobster habitat (as defined in Parnell et al.
2006), but it is still fished disproportionately higher than similar habitat further
south. This suggests that the fishermen are targeting spillover from the reserve.
This argument is further supported by the fact that fishermen are concentrating
their traps near the Reserve proportionately more during the middle and latter
stages of the season suggesting that most of the legal-sized lobster left by the end
of the season are those moving out of the Reserve. Traps were also observed
immediately north of the northern boundary of the Reserve during the latter half
of the season. This entire area is a sandy shelf and devoid of lobster habitat and
therefore was not surveyed for traps. However, the presence of traps in such poor
habitat during the latter part of the season, and not near the beginning, further

suggests that the fishermen are fishing spillover from the Reserve."


The most important question is: Do you really think that any statement
made by me would change the vote of the 5 people that really matter?

[GregAndrew]

For the most part, the blue areas are closed to fishing for us. Unless you plan on harpooning billfish which is allowed in several of them.

I don't think that even the most avid anti-MLPA people would argue that the perimeters of the reserves would likely provide a better opportunity to catch fish than the barren sand they are leaving us in between. Their arguement is that overall fishing will be better with MPAs. And they incorrectly use the best possible example (the perimeter) of current reserves as indication of how our entire coastline will respond. Just like all their other arguments, 2 half truths do not make the truth that they want to imply.

[Ohana]

I do not know how much this will change, but here is a link to the DFG's list of options they had with will be allowed in the various MLPA's and the "scorecard" which shows what options they selected:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/section632title14.pdf

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/scmp...0scorecard.pdf

[blackcloud9]

Thanks GregAndrew. Thats what I meant to say

So Aaron, if someone uses that "Edges of The Reserve" argument on you,
you have a softball pitch to hit out of the park.

(On the other hand, I also understand the sensitive nature of some of the
'activists' - even a picture of a great kayak catch is enough to
bring them to tears. Like my brother, who can't wait to get his
Nissan Leaf next year. )

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by blackcloud9

Thanks GregAndrew. Thats what I meant to say

So Aaron, if someone uses that "Edges of The Reserve" argument on you,
you have a softball pitch to hit out of the park.

(On the other hand, I also understand the sensitive nature of some of the
'activists' - even a picture of a great kayak catch is enough to
bring them to tears. Like my brother, who can't wait to get his
Nissan Leaf next year. )

Oh, I get the argument. In fact, I know the people on the journal article that you cited and have received money from the Southern California Academy of Sciences (the group that puts that journal out) to conduct my own unrelated research (I work on fossils). The main reason I said something following your post is that one of the talking points during a chat/debate with some of these people went something along the lines of, "...you know, you go on these internet forums and one guy reports a thresher and 30 guys are out the next day chasing these sharks. The only reason those fish are there in the first place is because of the reserve and the fishermen know it, they EVEN SAY SO IN THEIR BLOGS!"

I guess my point wasn't clear and its really no big deal. Not at all trying to say that you are in any way hurting the process. Just trying to point out that the things we say/type/blog "can and will be used in a court of law". I've interacted, and continue to interact with these people on a fairly consistent basis as it is the nature of the "scientific community" beast. The point they bring up again and again is that places like La Jolla are so productive for fishermen b/c of the reserve (it has nothing to do with the insane amount of upwelling that comes out of the canyon, right?) and that "the fishermen know it".

Its all complete shenanigans and we all hate it. My apologies for calling you out on the forum. That was a dick move. The comment just rang my memory a bit of some conversations I've had with this group in the past. Mostly, I'm pissed b/c it is my first weekend of holiday, I finally got my gear all back in order, and in comes "storm watch 2010"!! Now I'm stuck once again reading BWE and griping about MLPA's when I finally have an opportunity to be out on the water!!! I'll be happy to sit on the edge of the reserve with you someday pulling hoops, but hopefully those plans will be all for not after this all gets crushed in court!

[robmandel]

Originally Posted by blackcloud9

Thanks GregAndrew. Thats what I meant to say

So Aaron, if someone uses that "Edges of The Reserve" argument on you,
you have a softball pitch to hit out of the park.

(On the other hand, I also understand the sensitive nature of some of the
'activists' - even a picture of a great kayak catch is enough to
bring them to tears. Like my brother, who can't wait to get his
Nissan Leaf next year. )

recall that the reserves weren't necessarily going to increase fish populations inside, but the lame assed argument about larval dispersal. the "idea" was to have the fish larvae spread out from there and then the populations well beyond the reserves would increase.

problem is that even if that were true, and in reality it's total bullshit as where's the habitat and structure for the new larvae to grow, there's no way possible to measure the actual reserve effect. it'll take years for new populations to appear (think the slow growing calico) and even then, shouldn't it be the case that the larvae would have already dispersed and there'd be fish populations elsewhere.

fishing "the edge of the reserve" isn't going to affect the so called larval dispersions at all. the problem that they never bothered to address (well, why would they, it was NEVER about fish) was where are all the new fish going to live. hell, no structure, no fish.

[Ohana]

Originally Posted by PAL

^No, that's not quite right.

Unfortunately, each one of those blue areas can have different rules.

Some are virtually the same as reserves, allowing only things such as sewage outlet maintenance and sampling.

Others, like the one over Scripps Pier, allow some fishing. Crucially for us, we can fish bait there. That didn't happen by accident. We battled for it.

Thanks for the clarification.

I spent some time this afternoon going over the DFG descriptions for some of the SMR's/SMCA's actions and it is confusing what they do and do not restrict. I focused primarily on the areas I fish in Orange County and it seemed the rules were written using the same thought process as in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22.

Kevin