!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008

[aguachico]

That's what I'm talking about.

What about posting a poll on the major fishing boards in CA and get a consensus of how many people wopuld be for or against this idea.

We could shape the way the reserves and regualtions are designed. This could be a mini version of the "equal rights movement" in the 21st century.

We could have bad ass bumper stickers all over the state.

"hands off my $100 million" for the low-key version
"Will fish for $100 million"
"FUCK OFF Schwarzenegger" is the going on my truck.


I'm going to do some research on the private funding, just to have ammo on who to blame.

stand-by

[Handymansd]

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

Count me in. If they close La Jolla I have no use for a license anyway.

Ditto that for me too!!

If they do close La Jolla, I will have to get that damn Mokai, to get to where I can fish!

[Jim Sammons LJKF]

The tree hugging PETA types have deep pockets and I think they would be more than happy to have you hang up your fishing licenses. I think they would be celebrating in the streets if this was our form of protest.
There must be a better way to fight it than that.

[jscott]

In comparison to the entire CA fishing population relative to us kayakers who fish LJ--- we are a spec of sand. The DFG will not feel the financial sting if we (SD Kayakers) all stonewall and hold back buying licenses. Most people (other fisherfolk) will just shift their areas. I don't feel it is productive, and neither will it put any emphasis on our position or make us more likely to be heard. Has to be another way...

[psudocromis]

I think the word Slot Limit is a foreign word to them. its eather open or closed to finfish no exceptions. talk about crapy research.

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by Jim Sammons LJKF

The tree hugging PETA types have deep pockets and I think they would be more than happy to have you hang up your fishing licenses. I think they would be celebrating in the streets if this was our form of protest.
There must be a better way to fight it than that.

Jim;

I'm having trouble finding out how much and by whom the MPA's were privately funded. The fish lovers have deep pockets - yes, but we have deeper. Fisherman spend thousands if not more per year to fish. The problem is that we are segregated between inshore/offshore, yak/boat and fresh/salt.

We need to consolidate our buying power and put it use. The state of Californnia is in financial trouble. We need to make this happen for fy'09.

These are questions I could used answered to contine this project:

1. How are the sportfishing licensing fees distributed?
2. What private organization funded the reopening of the MPA's?
3. How much was used from private funding and public to reopn the MPA's?
4. How much additional monies are needed by the DFG to implement the MPA's.
5. Over the past 10 years, what is the break down on levied fines to fisherman? Commercial, recreational - poaching, licensing.

The 4th point is a big one. If we can prove that the DFG has acted in their own best interest by embracing the MPA's - then they will have lost any argument that they are here for the fishermen. I feel the DFG has embraced the MPA's to increase their patrolling duties. The increase in duties allows them to ask for more funding(job security).

We need to take it to these fuckers and hit them hard. As I start to gather more information I can then start small polling projects to see if this is actually feasible. I can't do this alone and will need help from all that are interested.

We are 1 million strong and need to be heard.

Fuck the DFG. Let's remove their power by removing their money

Yes Jim. the PETA would love the for us to not buy licenses. But the PETA types are not making the laws. I believe the State would not want us to stop buying licenses and would have to recognize our buying power. So even if you have to buy a license, like yourself and your customers - creating and funding the PAC would get this train moving.

Creating and funding a PAC is not enough. We just become another special interest group. By removing funding from the state, then we are recognized and powerful.

We have to remember someone has to pay for these MPA's to be implemented. What keeps the state from increasing you licenses fees to $200-$300 per year over the next couple of years?

[lamb]

Art,

I can see how cutting DFG funding through boycotting license could work in theory, I think it’s a big Utopia in the real world.

It would be impossible to organize and recruit enough people to actually make an impact.

Realistically - even if you’d hear or read from enough folks claiming they would support the idea and stick to it, I'll bet you it wouldn’t happen.

[Jim Sammons LJKF]

Art,
I bet PAL could help get you the information you want, I am sure United Anglers has much of this info also.

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by lamb

Art,

I can see how cutting DFG funding through boycotting license could work in theory, I think it’s a big Utopia in the real world.

It would be impossible to organize and recruit enough people to actually make an impact.

Realistically - even if you’d hear or read from enough folks claiming they would support the idea and stick to it, I'll bet you it wouldn’t happen.

Adi;

your probably right. I've spoken with enough people to understand that even though we (fisherman) will not give up our right to fish, even if there are no fish in the area we are allowed to fish.

What a glorious fantasy it was thinking that we, as a collective, could undo the unjust.

Without the support of the small congregation of yak fisherman, the ones most impacted by the MPA's, what chance would I have with the power boaters. The power boaters in SoCal are least affected by the MPA's with the access to Mexico.

The access to Mexico is shrinking. You will see limited or no access to the Nados in the near future. You will see the tuna and YT farming increase in size and efficiency limiting the schools in number. I've seen first hand dodo's and yt being netted, chopped and iced to feed the BFT in the cages. The eco-reserves are starting to be implemented in Mexico argeting recreational fisherman without commercial impact - stupido pendejos.

I hope with this mini series of lunatic ranting, I've been able to press a few buttons and turn on a few light bulbs about our future yak fishing.

Bueno suerte cabrones and cabronas

[FISHIONADO]

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

ditto

[Grego]

Paul, let me know how I can help. You know I'm familiar with the political process involved, and one route that should be entertained when dealing with the state is through our district representatives.

Unfortunately, I'm not working with any state lobbyist at this time for the City , otherwise I'd have someone to get a little insight. I'm not sure if we can find a nexus between the beach cities and negative effects of the closure to their constituents, but if so, they should be willing to have their state lobbyist investigating those issues and supporting our stance.

Anyhow, give me a call anytime to discuss.

Grego

[PAL]

Great discussion here. I respect the passionate opinions people have taken the time to post.

I call it like I see it. As I've said elsewhere, my goal and that of everyone at the KFACA is to work within the MLPA process to create the best possible outcome for kayak anglers. In earlier action at the Channel Islands and Central California, refusing to participate played right into our opponents' hands. They got almost everything they wanted, and we didn't get a say in the result.

Attacking the MLPA itself is beyond our limited scope and best left to other, better funded and more widely supported organizations.

The aim of the MLPA - a healthier aquatic ecosystem - is something we as recreational anglers should support. It's the implementation that is flawed. It is a rushed, haphazard politically driven system. The word "politically" is in bold italics because it's the key to understanding our situation. Anglers don't have the governor nor the legislature. Our political capital is severely limited; what we as anglers have will be spent carefully and cautiously.

All of the following points can be argued:

The science the MLPA is based on is shaky. It is not tied into conventional marine fisheries management, which has been showing gains in the past years. It is based on population surveys that are arguably inaccurate to the point of insignificance but used none the less. It has a potential to damage marine resources by focusing commercial and angling effort into limited geographic areas. The system has at times been co-opted by various user groups for their personal economic gain. Image has trumped cold, dispassionate fact. It is funded via an MOU from the pro-closure Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation.

EVERY one of the preceding points is irrelevant to our effort to win participation in the Regional Stakeholder's Group for Southern California. Now that I've said it, I'm putting the negatives behind me and moving forward.

YES, we will lose fishing access. NO, it's not time to sell our gear and take up bowling or golf. When the MLPA process has run its course, we'll still be fishing.

So, let's roll up our sleeves, get to work, and make sure our voices are heard in the stakeholder's process. We have to take care of our own business. Allies are great, and we'll work with other user groups where our interests overlap. If we don't stand up for ourselves, I guarantee other stakeholder's will put their needs at the forefront.

[PAL]

A scattershot of comments:

Don't think for a minute that the pro-closure forces won't be comming for La Jolla - and comming hard. Along with identifying our "holy sites", we also need to start thinking about areas we'd be willing to give up - as this appears to be a necessary part of the equation.

LJ and plenty of other key kayak fishing areas. As far as identifying closure areas, in a sense that's what the launch sites project is about. The areas we don't use - from our point of view, great places to put the mandated reserves - will be obvious.

Not sure whether they would consider it or even understand it, but it could be argued that the distance from the (relatively) “shielded” kayak beach launch is something they should be sensitive of... I’m not a lawyer, but I would think you could make a case that we’re being discriminated against?! I don’t know, but playing the discrimination card seems to work in arguing rights discussions.

At times the process has been quite rational. Even in CenCal where kayakers had no stakeholder representation, the network proposals were tweaked in recognition of our short range and limited sheltered access points. The argument still holds force - you bet we'll wield it.

Some things have changed since Brian (Useful Idiot) followed the Channel Islands reserve process. The MLPA is a separate beast, but what he said about the effectiveness of negative public comment remains mostly true. Stakeholders have influence and a vote in the outcome. Public speakers, not so much.

Unfortunately the effectiveness of personal lobbying via meetings with DFG staff has been reduced due to changes in the process. We'll still talk with everyone we can get to listen, including the Fish and Game Commissioners.

It can't be said too many times - we will not carry water for commercial or even other recreational fishing interests at our own expense - we're here to look out for our interests first.

Brian, thanks for the offer of help. Gratefully accepted.

We should organize some sort of kayak rally to draw attention to our special needs and increase our chances at getting a seat at the table. If we could get 100 or so of us out there, maybe line up at the reserve edge or paddle up and down the shores in formation with banners saying "Save LJ" or whatnot, and get some local press coverage it might go a long way to reinforcing our points.

Actually, we've been doing it for years via our tournaments, which I've documented in the sportfishing press since 2005. We can convincingly demonstrate kayak fishing's high participation levels and its relative importance. As far as mainstream press goes, we must carefully avoid negative impressions and focus on the positive.

True that. I'm all for changing the take limits, slot limits and no fish periods for breeding impacts.

UASC continues to work on it. Other sportfishing interests are fighting reduced limits. It takes a long time to change old habits.

I'm not sure if we can find a nexus between the beach cities and negative effects of the closure to their constituents, but if so, they should be willing to have their state lobbyist investigating those issues and supporting our stance.

Grego, consider yourself hired. Local municipalities will influence the shape of MPAs to come. We need your expertise. Thanks and welcome to the team.

FYI - other people with specialized knowledge are welcome to assist in our stakeholder efforts. We're all in this together, and because the MPAs will be spaced no more than 20 miles apart, no stretch of SoCal coastline will be immune.

And finally, please consider that our opponents are watching everything we do, and practice discretion in your postings. Image IS reality for the MLPA decision makers.

[dorado50]

Stop fishing(boycott licenses) because of one persons (angry) idea, thats amazing. Stop speculating and join UNITED ANGLERS.....give them yourself and/or money........

[tylerdurden]

Thanks for keeping us informed Pal. I don't know what to think of it right now, but I am following what is going on and I support UASC.

Even in CenCal where kayakers had no stakeholder representation, the network proposals were tweaked in recognition of our short range and limited sheltered access points.

Good to hear some good news and some precedent that our interests are looked out for.

It can't be said too many times - we will not carry water for commercial or even other recreational fishing interests at our own expense - we're here to look out for our interests first.

Good. Blindly aligning ourselves with commercial or boat based anglers may or may not be in our best interests, as they for sure have very different needs and wants than us.

[Useful Idiot]

The one good thing about the process coming to SD when it has is that we now have plenty of experience to draw off of from the past. We know the approaches that are effective, and which aren't. I very strongly agree that we need to look out for our own interests first and foremost and align with whoever if the situation presents itself. Piggy backing off of a more powerful ally almost certainly backfires at some point along the way.

As kayak fishermen, and even fishermen as a whole, we don't have the resources or power to bitch slap this thing out of our house. All we can do is try to steer it in the right direction. Getting everybody aware of what's coming up is the first step if we're going to have any kind of success with this. Please join UA and KFACA and start spreading the word about this process. The more support we have for our insignificant, low impact faction of users, the better chance we have at working with the system.

And like Paul said, show up to kayak fishing events and meetings of any type to show that we do have true numbers of active kayak fishermen. Political stunts are great for media coverage, but real numbers at tournaments and seminars hold much more meaning for decision makers.

[aguachico]

mas info; please note the date. I am also looking for an article that was in the UT. There's also a prominent scientist/diver from scripps that is barking about how there are no more fish in the kelp blah blah blah.

http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/PR...ytonRCZ177.pdf

I looked at the USAC site and there's an interesting brochure to print and mail.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/pdf/SCmlpa.pdf

D50; .....

[Handymansd]

So many very good and valid points!

Does anyone that has been involved in this type of political juggernaut think that courting / lobbying some of the more powerful law firms might bring about some clout, and sound advice (not necessarily law suits, but I would not rule them out either) to help us navigate this process / battle?

I will get as involved as my time and resources will allow, but a large Thank You is in order to all of you that spend time and money to help support our passion and interests, whether or not we win, lose, or draw!

[PEMEX]

According to my marine science proffessor, this is going to happen no matter what, pure politics, no "treehuggers involved". The model is New Zealand. The date for these clossures is 2010, so keep your fingers crossed andd hope they leave at least one productive area open within paddling distance.