YOUR ACCESS AND FISHING IS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK!

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by dorado50

Perhaps state gov'mt. has already predetermined closures and these meetings are just a formality to satisfy us true americans? Don't know,don't wanna know... closures or not I'm still fish'n !

YUP!

Viva La Baja!

[Tman]

This is what I find a bit amusing....CA is broke, IOU's on state taxes, DFG is already understaffed...

Has anyone even pondered the financial burden and strain of enforcing this so-called closure agreement?

Maybe those in favor of the closures who have the financial backings that are enabling them to create their Utopia should foot the bill for the added DFG personnel to enforce their dreams...

As for me, I'm claiming Squatter's Rights...I've been fishing LJ for well over 7 years...

[Matt]

Not that I really think any of this will be taken into account but.....how about the economic impact the closure could have upon local business?? The entire sportfishing fleet, the tackle stores, the kayak stores, the spearfishing stores, bait barges...etc..?????? It may not completely close some businesses but it will definitely affect all to some degree. Let's all thank the boys representing our rights and try to put a stop to these closures. I am all for slot limits and seasonal take etc... but as if our economy isn't in enough trouble?? Ya gotta wonder what they are thinking.

[PAL]

Has anyone even pondered the financial burden and strain of enforcing this so-called closure agreement?

and

Not that I really think any of this will be taken into account but.....how about the economic impact the closure could have upon local business?? The entire sportfishing fleet, the tackle stores, the kayak stores, the spearfishing stores, bait barges...etc..??????

Yes! Well, sort of.

The state spent $700,000 on a fisheries use survey - the Ecotrust maps quite a few of us filled out. Its a great tool, and at least for the sportboats and commercial guys, a real-world cost can be derived from potential closures. Unfortunately, it would have cost a lot more than $700k to estimate the on and off the water costs to the wider recreational boating and fishing economy.

The Ecotrust data is good stuff that isn't getting much attention at the RSG, except in the three proposals that deliberately minimize economic damage (your fishing reps hard at work). The three maximum conservation proposals will be analyzed and you can bet the results will predict economic armageddon. That might change the climate at the RSG; in any case, the Blue Ribbon Task Force, the committee that will recommend a network to the Fish and Game Commission, will likely take the economic impacts seriously.

Nancy Foley, the state's chief warden, estimated that the MLPA reserves will cost $40 million / year for enforcement, scientific monitoring, and public outreach. It's money the state doesn't have. This is a hot issue at the Commission. Suggested public letters will follow in a week or so.

[Tman]

Thanks Paul for tackling this battle.

I don't think they have seriously thought about the potential monetary ramifications involved, I tend to think those involved are only looking at their agenda and not the big picture.

Where is the funding going to come from to enforce regs, and who shall they target first?

Boaters? Yakkers? Spearers? Coastal surf anglers?

That would be alot of ground to cover.

I remember years ago (many years) seeing persons hitting Sunset Cliffs at low tide, reaching under rocks, with plastic bags, filling them. DFG couldn't control them then, how are they supposed to monitor the masses with their current plan?

To me, it seems as if they have a controlled agenda, and not thought out very well. There has to be a give and take mentality for the benefit of all parties involved, one which would appease the parties involved.

I seriously doubt that they are seeing the big picture. I think it is more of an ego type mentality, they want to get their way. And if they don't, they'll take their ball and go home...