Marine Life Protection Act .... Say Goodbye To Nearshore Fishing!!

[bones]

CAPT Scott from the FNN put up this notice many months ago and everyone here just kind of blew it off. BUT THE BALL KEPT ROLLING!
I've got to admit......Fisherman as a whole can be VERY passive and not willing to stand up for many causes they believe in. The MLPA IS A FACT FOLKS and it's steam rolling ahead with not much resistance from the fishing community as a whole. Sure......The commercial fisherman have shown their concern and the guys who own and opperate the Charter services but the regular good old joe fisherman who likes to shorefish or spend a day out on his own boat has not stepped up to the plate.I copied these links from another board where the topic is widely discussed.If these maps don't freak out the fishing community here then you folks better check yourself for a heartbeat!

These maps just came out so if you still want to catch your near shore yellowtail, white seabass or bugs, you may want to pay attention to the areas the enviro's are trying to close off to all. The MLPA affects everyone here from the surf fisherman to the guys who like to fish the nearshore islands and it's VERY extensive!
I believe that FNN has grown to a huge amount of members and the forums here are a good medium to help us group together and keep the fishing community informed.

Talk about this in your clubs, friends, etc. and start ramping up for a fight. This is happening faster than you think.

This is the link to the general site.........
California Department of Fish & Game, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

These are the maps that are being proposed by ENVIROS
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n6ii.pdf

These are the maps proposed by our constituents
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n5ii.pdf
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n4ii.pdf

I hope that this is worthy of Dana putting up a sticky to keep this topic at the top of the board.

I just want my kids and future generations to be able to enjoy our little sport in the future and they want to close ALL of my favorite spots to surf fish!

[bsp]

That's really bad. Bones, do you know how I can get involved?

[CAPT'N]

As part of the process, MLPA has hearings where any one can speak. The want public input. But alas, the meeting come with hundreds of fish petting activists speaking, and rarely a single fisherman on the pulpit.

Tonight in Long Beach just steps from the Fred Hall show there was an open call for public comments.

I have friends there that are stakeholders-representatives of the fishing side of the equation.

Want to get involved-you need to get educated. Read what Bones posted,

hear is an article from my clubs on line monthly called the Chum Line

"MLPA—AND THE BEAT GOES ON
FOR OBVIOUS REASONS THIS PAGE WILL BE DEVOTED TO THE ACTIVITIES WITHIN
THE MLPA PROCESS. NOTHING COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE
OF RECREATIONAL FISHING.
John Ballotti writes: The next meeting of the MLPA South Coast Regional
Stakeholder group is in our backyard in Long Beach on March 3-4. The meeting
will be held at the Hilton Long Beach Executive Center, 701 W. Ocean Blvd, Long
Beach. Public Comment is scheduled for approximately 2:45 p.m. on Tuesday the
3rd and 8 a.m. on Wednesday the 4th. Having a strong, informed fishing interest
contingent at the upcoming meeting is critical. Up to now, public input has been
dominated by those who do not have our interests at heart. It is time for the
whole RSG to hear from those whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by the
recommendations made by the stakeholders. After moving the meeting to Long
Beach, I would hate to think of the consequences of a fishing interest “no show”.
It is hard enough to get our message across now, but an embarrassing lack of
interest by fishermen will add fuel to the closure fire. Time is set aside for public
comment. We need those comments! "

and another:

MLPA—AND THE BEAT GOES ON
THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATE BY JOHN BALLOTTI WHO IS ONE OF THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL
STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES. HE REPRESENTS THE RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY AT MEETINGS AND
SUBMITS PERIODIC REPORTS FOR OUR CONSUMPTION. THANKS JOHN...
On January 13-14 the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (SCRSG)
met in San Diego in final preparation prior to breaking into three working
groups to propose draft Marine Protected Area (MPA) Networks in the South
Coast Region. After adopting the regional objectives in support of the MLPA
goals, general presentations were made by members of the Fish & Game
Department, The Science Advisory Team (SAT), and the Marine Life Protection
Act Initiative Team (MLPA I-Team) designed to prepare the group for their
task of proposing MPAs in the South Coast Region.
The MLPA I-Team then revealed the three working groups that are charged
with the task of developing MPA proposals. The teams consist of cross interest,
cross regional representatives that mirror the composition of the entire
SCRSG. Working sessions are scheduled for January 29th and February 10th
to develop the draft proposals. At the next full SCRSG meeting scheduled for
March 3 and 4, the working teams will present their draft proposals to the
entire group. Additionally, any external proposals received by February 18th
submitted by the public that meet
the guidelines will also be presented.By design this is an iterative process.
Each proposal will be reviewed by the SAT, commented on, and adjusted
until compliance to the guidelines and consensus is achieved. No one
expects unanimous adoption of any one proposal. In the end there will
be a number of proposals forwarded to the Blue Ribbon Task Force. By
the March dinner meeting we will know the extent of the differences in
the proposals. Stay tuned."

If you wqant to be on the mailing list for MLPA information:

MLPAinitiative@lists.ceres.ca.gov

Thats all folks........................

Capt.

[sansou]

Bones and CAPT'N,

What do the cattleboat operators have to say? Do they even show up or do they all leave the talking to their RSG?

[bones]

From a surf fisherman/harbor fisherman's viewpoint.......Alot of guys have told me recently that they don't have the resources to enforce such closures but then I started to think. Take Newport harbor for example.....
The residents there don't even want fisherman fishing in their little private community. Once they make it a protected area and make sure that all of the residents are aware that fisherman are no longer allowed to be there......... any resident can make a call to the harbor patrol and turn you in. Kinda hard to deny you are fishing when harbor patrol rolls up on you and tells you that you are in violation of a FEDERAL law.
Hey......They will use the eyes of the locals to turn you in. Coastguard,Lifeguards,Harbor patrol,DFG wardens.....Even local police and residents will be hunting you down. It won't take much to enforce the MLPA. The citations and resulting fines will generate alot of extra revenue for the local cities.
Don't kid yourself folks.......They were able to do it from PT Conception all of the way up to the Oregon border. SoCal will be no different if we don't make a serious stand.
Keep in mind that the MLPA is Already a done deal. The only thing right now that is on the table is what will be closed. 20% of the areas or 80%.........

[bones]

Bones and CAPT'N,

What do the cattleboat operators have to say? Do they even show up or do they all leave the talking to their RSG?

Good question Rich......Scott is much more in the loop than I am since he is deeply involved with the LA Rod and Reel club. I've just been reading alot about it on BD. BD is a board where 99% of the guys are offshore fisherman and the debate on this subject is very heated. All Scott had to tell me was this is why there are NO LONGER Cattleboats north of Pt Conception!

[Wingnut]

Damn, that's A LOT of prime fishing real estate going to be affected.
If you don't speak up... you won't be heard.
Better to do something about it now than having to complain about it when it's too late. :Neutral:

[e-cat]

If you fish the Santa Barbara area, look very closely at what is on the chopping block- Every single proposal, has us loosing a large zone from the Goleta Pier -North (the enviro proposal takes an even bigger swath, starting some 300 yards south of the pier-) As was stated allready- You need to get involved on some level- Attend a meeting and voice your opinion, in a civilized way. Proper comunication, rather than ranting and raving will get you you heard- Write a clean and concise letter and email it to the people working on these things- Tell them your feelings, and even give them contructive modifications to what is being offered- Do something!- There is a lot of prime Flatty Habitat, that is easaily fished from shore, Kayak, Float Tube, or small boat, that will be gone very soon - Steve

[CAPT'N]

Good question Rich,

First- Bones is right-The MLPA IS a done deal, but here is the "Open Door"

The MLPA leaves what areas to close to the local area stakeholder groups advisers. Meaning they take the recommendations under consideration.

From past MLPA areas, the level of interest of the people in the affected areas has a large impact on the closure areas. For example, the MLPA directs that x% of an area must be protected, but the Ecos push if 20% is good, then 99% closure is better. They are always out in force at the meetings!

The voice of the fishermen of the communities directly effected, is paramount to the success or failure to keep areas open. For example, Mike fisherman (sorry Bones) fishes Malibu on weekends for Flatties, he buys coffee and and rolls from Starbucks in the morning, pays for parking near the beach, then when he is done tops off his gas and buys lunch in the city of Malibu.

When he can not fish Malibu, Malibu loses $, repeat this for all the fishermen/fisherwomen that fish the ocean and you see there is a $$$ impact to the local merchants, and the city tax base. This may sound far fetched, but this is the type of "data" that the Ecos cant argue against. This argument actually works, as many merchants do attend as they are worried!

The point is we need to be a voice!

As far as the boat owners, landings, and crew, some are very involved, some not. The results will be reflected in the number of voices heard, and the arguments they make. Many prime fishing areas WILL be lost, but we can mitigate the damage for us and for future generations.

The Los Angeles Rod and Reel Club is to my knowledge the only fishing club with two stakeholders on the MLPA panel. Check out our website, read our Chum Line monthly for MLPA updates, and subscribe to the link below for MLPA e-mails.

HERE: MLPAinitiative@lists.ceres.ca.gov



Capt'n

[Granny Fish]

I need to go to some of these meetings and learn more. I'm having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind such restrictions on these areas. What studies have been done to support the need for closure?

[hughpam]

I can't open the maps for some reason. can they be posted here?

[CAPT'N]

Here is the brand spanking new official MLPA page at the DFG-

Everything you did not ever want to know about losing you rights to fish, and who to send letters to!

www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/contact_sc.asp

Happy writing!

Capt'n

[bones]

I need to go to some of these meetings and learn more. I'm having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind such restrictions on these areas. What studies have been done to support the need for closure?


GF...For over a year the DFG has been doing studies on the fish populations. Probably longer than that to be honest. Last year when I was fishing up north around the Santa Barbara area...... Bigred and I were greeted by a DFG lady at the docks. She was there EVERY weekend and was doing a study so to speak. She asked questions like how many fish did you catch?,How big were they?,How often do you fish this area?, Where are you from?........She was even measuring peoples catches and quantities of fish caught. She also was hitting up every boat that was comming in to re-trailer their boat as well as the comercial fisherman. I'm assuming that her research was providing info to the concerned ECO folks.I picked her brain a bit and she seemed a little evasive sometimes with her answers and wouldn't tell me WHY she was gathering this information. She did tell me though that the halibut population and WSB population seemed to be doing ok but the Lingcod population was diminishing. I wonder if they calculate in the milions of gallons of raw sewage(Human Turds) and storm drain runnoff that comes from the cities and local residents. I finally was informed why Malibu has the WORST water quality in the SM bay. There is NO sewage system along PCH in that area so ALL of the homes in that area are leaching their sewage right ino the ground and it contaminates the coastal waters. That's why Malibu receives a "F" on the water quality rating scale every year. Funny how the Liberal Eco freaks don't do anything to attempt to stop all of the contaminants that we pump into the ocean every day!

[DarkShadow]

Funny how the Liberal Eco freaks don't do anything to attempt to stop all of the contaminants that we pump into the ocean every day!

Yeah, it sucks that those "Don't Dump Stuff In Here As It Goes Into The Ocean" insignias on every storm drain are ignored by pretty much everyone in LA. It's too bad these eco freaks can't devise a system that allows for trash that is dumped improperly, whether it be in the storm drains or other places, to be redirected to that person's living room.

[Granny Fish]

Bones - I've experienced the same surveys coming in to the docks after fishing and even when surf fishing a couple of times. Still I would like to see how they qualify closure over enforcing regulations already in place. Looks like I'll be writing some letters this weekend.

I agree with both you and DS regarding the raw sewage. How often are the beaches closed to swimming every year because of high concentrations of bacteria? Yet no one seems to be addressing the problem this may be causing to our coastal resource.

[bergie berg]

this may be a stupid question but does "no take" mean no fishing whatsoever? or just catch and release? (my gut tells me no fishing whatsoever) For example on those maps NPH is highlighted red and designated as some sort of regulated area and in the legend it says that red indicates "no take". Just wondering if anybody could clarify that for me. If the MLPA enviros decided to make NPH or some of these other harbors a catch and release only area, quite frankly I would be all for it.

[Rambogottafish]

I belong to a saltwater fishing club, Dana Wharf Rod and Reel Club (DWRRC). We as a club have donated to United Anglers to fight this issue for the past few years. Last year we had a donation of $1,500.00 which was more than previous or this years donation. The donation varies depending on the clubs bank account. United Anglers has a real presence in this fight but they need our help as most of us are uneducated or have no time to voice against the MLPA. Our coastline and islands are in serious peril if this effort fails. We flat will not be able to fish the affected areas. Hell, the Navy just closed a 3 mile perimeter of the West end of San Clemente Island. Can't fish the 9 any more. What's next?????

[CAPT'N]

Rambogottafish,

look at Catilina , we lose some prime area too.

bergie berg- No take means no fishing, netting, spearing, NO HAVING FUN!

Capt

[gletemfeelsteelgary]

BOTTOM LINE IS WE ALL NEED TO GET OUT THERE AND SPEAK UP...

There strength in numbers, I think someone should put up a no frills version of the pros and cons of the suggested closures(if there are any pros to this) .

The information included in this post, though definately helpfull, is very scattered and hard to follow.

If someone could take the time to do a streamlined "from the anglers" summary, I'm sure it would rally more commitment to stopping this and voicing the concerns.

Maybe even to be followed by a "rendevous" post where we could all meet at the next meeting.

I cannot say I am educated enough regarding the particulars on this subject to take the helm on this one.

I thought I'd throw that out there...I think the details are too obscured, a clean concise presentation of the issue would draw many more into the battle from the anglers end.

My 2 cents,
Gary

[CAPT'N]

Gary,

glad you chimed in ;-)

There is some very good info at the DGF linkj I posted, has some good intel. If you want to write comments check here: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/publiccomments_sc.asp


If you want to know about meetings check here: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp

The stakeholders in this are doing battle, and doing a very good job. Just look at what happened in the MLPA areas north of us, and you can see the battle is intense, and we are already fairing much better than our neighbors to the north.

The problem is when it is time for "JOE FIsherman" to come in off the street to voice his opinion, there is rarely more that a few at most. Versus when it is time for JOE ECO to chime in they are there in droves.

Capt'n

[gletemfeelsteelgary]

"F" these dipsticks! I dont care what they close Im gonna fish it anyways, there is just no possible way to keep everyone out of the suggested areas so "F" all these fags who think they can flip my life upside down and prevent me from fishing my favorite spots I have fished forever. Anyways I just dont see this happening

I surely cannot say that I dissagree with your point but in order to try to keep all of our fishing experiences healthy and clean with no legal reprocussion, we all need to at least somehow get involved, it may take some of our precious fishing time to do it as well but in the end we gain greater rewards if we thwart their shutdown.

Not gonna be a quick easy battle either, we all must persist and not let down...the squeeky wheel gets the oil....lets let them hear us squeek !

It does seem rather far fetched and ridiculous but for us anglers to assume that it won't go through may just be a big mistake, these are our backyard jewels, let's not let them pencil pushers push us out of ou own local fisheries....

[GARYC]

I'm not sure if I could even be considered a "joe-fisherman", just starting fishing last year. I have read some of meeting notes and to tell you the truth I do not feel I am educated enough to go to a meeting and speak out. Can anyone recommend some easy reading regarding all this legal mumbo jumbo from the beginning? Seems like I'm stepping into the middle of all this.
Thank you

[gletemfeelsteelgary]

I'm not sure if I could even be considered a "joe-fisherman", just starting fishing last year. I have read some of meeting notes and to tell you the truth I do not feel I am educated enough to go to a meeting and speak out. Can anyone recommend some easy reading regarding all this legal mumbo jumbo from the beginning? Seems like I'm stepping into the middle of all this.
Thank you


I too feel that if someone can lay out a clean concise summary of this whole scenario, more people can and will get involved.

I am not too savvy on this subject either...

can anyone do what I am suggesting ?

[vinlandviking]

im in the same boat as the members above( not to savvy) i have seen patitions for things. mybe some one here knows how to start one to keep things open. we might get backing from the people fisherman buy from and the general public.i would be willing to stand in front of a store and ask people to sign.

[Granny Fish]

I'm sure we all feel a little intimidated to some degree. Perhaps approaching the proposed closures as what it will mean to our self, the average joe fisherman, as most of us are, is the only (best) approach. Better to say something than nothing at all - Right?

There are many different things that effect these fisheries mentioned, but to cut recreactional fishing out of these areas would be a shame to say the least. Recreational fishing probably creates the least amount of threat to these areas.

Fishing is an inexpensive pass time for many of us. We pay our fishing licence fees in part to protect these fishing areas so our kids and grandkids might someday be able fish them as well. The ocean is a big place and there are a lot of fish in the sea but it seems to me that the areas targeted for closure are all the areas known for their value to the recreational fisherman.

[CAPT'N]

Here is something I received today:


http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm302/schiffmans/senatelettermlpa.jpg

[newster]

My fish were checked out by a guy working for the MLPA yesterday and my buddy asked him a lot of questions. Apparently, they are counting the fish and where they are caught from to see what the most popular fishing areas are. He said that their intention is to keep the popular spots open, and close the less often used spots. According to him, the logic of the MLPA is that the fishing will be better in the remaining open spots because of the protected closed spots.

Personally, I took what he said with a grain of salt. Also, as a private boater, I would rather have tighter regulations and fish where I want, then to have random gps spots to avoid fishing in with the regulations the way they are. Look at the white sea bass, black sea bass, and boccacio populations of how better regulations helped both the population and anglers enjoy our natural resources. I don't see people crying about lack of white sea bass or boccacio. They really need to tighten the numbers people are allowed to keep, or even size regulations, but not close down areas. My 2 cents.

[Troutman65]

My fish were checked out by a guy working for the MLPA yesterday and my buddy asked him a lot of questions. Apparently, they are counting the fish and where they are caught from to see what the most popular fishing areas are. He said that their intention is to keep the popular spots open, and close the less often used spots. According to him, the logic of the MLPA is that the fishing will be better in the remaining open spots because of the protected closed spots.

Personally, I took what he said with a grain of salt. Also, as a private boater, I would rather have tighter regulations and fish where I want, then to have random gps spots to avoid fishing in with the regulations the way they are. Look at the white sea bass, black sea bass, and boccacio populations of how better regulations helped both the population and anglers enjoy our natural resources. I don't see people crying about lack of white sea bass or boccacio. They really need to tighten the numbers people are allowed to keep, or even size regulations, but not close down areas. My 2 cents.



I agree with you newster.

[Troutman65]

Here is something I received today:


http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm302/schiffmans/senatelettermlpa.jpg


How can the State afford to fund this when we are BROKE. It don't really make to much sence to me. Except that with the closures they have an ave. of cash flow from fines .

[GeordyBass]

those bastards....damn i dislike them and im pissed....I'm gonna try to help out as much as i can to stop them and what suck is,if they close the bays and harbors down,where will the fishermen/women go???Our Lakes!

[FishinMich]

MPLA could be a good thing IF it was managed properly, but we all know that won't happen.
The environmentalists need to focus their efforts to stop illegal harvesting, find better ways to commercially harvest fish and most of all to stop pollution as these steps would actually help "their" ocean, if that's what they're really concerned about.

My opinion would be they have areas that rotate, let's say every few years or so - that way, they don't get overfished. That or seasonal closures on certain species and that sportfishermen/women/kids(what have you) also conserve the resources via catch and release... although most members of this community are already very passionate about that.

I would like to do what I can to help also - but like others, I feel the need to do more research and attend informative meetings to better educate myself. It definitely is intimidating, especially going up against a herd of crazed environmentalists.

[Wingnut]

Pick up the latest issue of W.O.N. (March 13th issue).

There is a very comprehensive article on the M.L.P.A. movement and the involvement of the United Anglers of Southern California.

The article includes detailed maps of the proposed closures.

READ UP! Knowledge is the first line of defense.

[Stormcrow]

Actually, I think this is a good thing. Scientists, like myself, propose these closures for the good of species. It looks like there are plenty of "take" areas to fish outside of managed regions.

support catch and release.

[Socal man]

The MLPA is a very big deal. If this act passes it only gives the Enviros even more ground to close off more of our waters. Everyone should write a letter or email the director. The email will only take a couple minutes to send. dfg website has it posted. If you have the time write out a letter. A lot of other fishing boards are organizing letter campaigns. If even half of us send a letter we can stop this. Take the time and do something because once the water is gone you will realize what you lost.

[Howling Mad Murdock]

I have not read the whole document, but I am close to the state budget as I am in the land development/construction industry. I see many projects that are frequently funded by a mixture of local government, state government, federal government and private funds, as well as the ability of our government agencies to float bonds to allocate money for projects. Bonds which we all pay, regardless of our position on this bill.

There are ways to put this to a ballet by amassing enough signatures. I would think this type of forum would be perfect to amass the amount needed or even get the ball rolling. There are a variety of opinions, but I think there will be a a general opinion that everyone should come to an agreement.

There are also possiblities of having the members of FNN possibly doing a "town hall" meeting and maybe inviting the proponents to speak, of course rebuttals by the fishing community. It's a way to get people involved as a whole.

These suggestions are just some forms of getting involved and allowing your side be heard by the general public. After all, if you can get the on a ballot, and you can persuade them that you are in support of "smart fishing", you can defeat or change the areas of impact.

Anyhow, just random, quick thoughts.

Kevin

[City Dad]

There are ways to put this to a ballet...

Now there is an interesting idea. I wonder what type of music would work... Tchaikovski? Mozart? I wonder if any of those old, dead white guys fished...

jk! Good points! Murdoch is on the jazz!!!

[Howling Mad Murdock]

Actually, I think this is a good thing. Scientists, like myself, propose these closures for the good of species. It looks like there are plenty of "take" areas to fish outside of managed regions.

support catch and release.

Storm, the problem with most environmentalists; they tend to overglorify the issue. Prime example is PETA wanting to redefine fish to sea kittens. We all know we have an overfishing problem, however, I do not believe that the entire solution lies within the nearshore fishermen.

I have been an avid hunter and fisherman all my life, and I also agree with Arthur (Wingnut) that education, on both sides can help the issue, if even on a small scale. As a hunter, I saw whole families of Vietnamese killing does and young buck (less than forked horns) in A zone. Uneducated about hunting laws, slaughtering does. If those people knew the law, and the reasons behind not taking does and young bucks, maybe they dont harvest them?

Kevin

[Howling Mad Murdock]

Now there is an interesting idea. I wonder what type of music would work... Tchaikovski? Mozart? I wonder if any of those old, dead white guys fished...

jk! Good points! Murdoch is on the jazz!!!

heh ballet, ballot, 1 typo. :)

[KID CREOLE]

This isn't about the fish, it's about stopping fishing.

You close the most productive areas to fishing, force more fisherman into less productive areas, come out with MLPA2 and say, "The closed areas are flourishing, the open areas are depleted we need more closures"

Anybody want to bet me that I'm wrong?

[KID CREOLE]

Actually, I think this is a good thing. Scientists, like myself, propose these closures for the good of species. It looks like there are plenty of "take" areas to fish outside of managed regions.

support catch and release.


Really, how were the white cbass brought back, by closures or by management and hatcheries?

The proposed closures for Catalina will close off 75% of the best white cbass spots!

[Noobiesrule]

This really sucks.

[so cal shaggy]

Tomorrow (Saturday 3/21) there is a MLPA workshop at the city council chambers in Laguna beach here is info:

On Saturday, March 21st, 2009, the City of Laguna Beach will be hosting a Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Workshop.

The workshop will be held from 1-4 pm in the City Council Chambers.

What is the Marine Life Protection Act?
A process is currently underway to designate a network of new Marine Protected Areas along the Southern California Coastline. By the end of 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission will approve a proposal that will set some areas of state waters aside for conservation and rehabilitation while allowing others to remain open to sustain vital recreational and commercial fisheries. As a part of the MLPA process, the three Laguna Beach marine protected areas will be evaluated and either maintained as is, modified, or eliminated.

Let your voice be heard!
After a brief explanation of the Marine Life Protection Act, all workshop attendees will have the opportunity to provide input on the designation process. Following guidelines established by top marine scientists and the Department of Fish and Game, attendees can help place sections of “no take” reserves off of some areas South Orange County, as well as identify species and method of take still allowed in other areas. Information from this workshop will be presented before the Laguna Beach City Council and will be sent directly to the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. For more information, please contact Calla Allison. (949) 246-2459 callison@lagunabeachcity.net

Anyone that fishes in Newport or Laguna should attend this workshop. This will be your chance to give input on closure areas in Orange County. Anyone interested can contact me via either a PM, E-mail or leave me a voicemail at (714) 206-5673.

Thanks,
Jeff

[Howling Mad Murdock]

This isn't about the fish, it's about stopping fishing.

You close the most productive areas to fishing, force more fisherman into less productive areas, come out with MLPA2 and say, "The closed areas are flourishing, the open areas are depleted we need more closures"

Anybody want to bet me that I'm wrong?


I think that this is the type of reaction that is not productive if you are trying to stop or change the proposed areas. Backing up your statements with analytical data goes a long way to change any government agency.

Perhaps, you may suggest opening more hatcheries to help promote stronger fish populations. Allocating money toward hatcheries and perhaps rotating areas for fishing? There are a million ways to skin a cat, however, I do not think the knee-jerk reaction is one of them.

Maybe a few of us put our heads together and write up a counter proposal and submit it with signatures?

Kevin

[KID CREOLE]

I think that this is the type of reaction that is not productive if you are trying to stop or change the proposed areas. Backing up your statements with analytical data goes a long way to change any government agency.

Perhaps, you may suggest opening more hatcheries to help promote stronger fish populations. Allocating money toward hatcheries and perhaps rotating areas for fishing? There are a million ways to skin a cat, however, I do not think the knee-jerk reaction is one of them.

Maybe a few of us put our heads together and write up a counter proposal and submit it with signatures?

Kevin


Kevin,

This started with the closures of deep water cod at the end of 1999, closing deep water cod, over 60 fa. to fishing, supposedly for 99 years.

While recreational fisherman, a very few of us have contriputed to Uniter Anglers or contributed to the Hubbs hatchery or volunteered time to catch brood stock cbass for the white cbass hatcery, these closures have continued!

Being a very experienced L.A. Orange county Catalina fisherman, it's very obvious that these closures target the most productive areas.

If it were about helping bring back fishing and not about stopping fishing can you tell me what fish and game possesion laws have changed for the limits on Calico Bass, Sand Bass, Spotted Bay Bass, Barracuda or White Seabass in the last 10 years?

[RamboBoy]

Then don't buying a fishing license at all in 2010, lol.

[Stormcrow]

Really, how were the white cbass brought back, by closures or by management and hatcheries?

The proposed closures for Catalina will close off 75% of the best white cbass spots!

The White Sea Bass populations were rejuvenated from a COMBINATION of keeper length management, take limit and annual closures during certain times of year, along with the hatchery process.

I think the solution in this proposal is probably due to the fact that the situation is dire and the cost to fund hatchery programs is too great.

[Howling Mad Murdock]

Kid Creole,

While I have not fully researched an answer to your question, I believe Storm Crow hit on one of a couple snap responses I had for you.

While I know shutting down certain areas are horrible to most of us, I think that it does help. We did not get into this situation overnight, and I do not think that the solution will correct itself overnight either. Look at the salmon, tuna and abalone issues.

Every little bit helps, whether it be donating time, money or brainstorming during these critical meetings. I think it would be great to get a few people from FNN together to brainstorm and get a petition signed for consideration. I have been having more fun fishing the socal fisheries than any other place, so this issue would affect me.

Kevin

[bluefin2na]

Get in the game and read up on whos who and what side of the fence they sit on.

I,m a RSG member and I urge each and everyone one of you, To please put pen to paper and write letters, get your kids to write letters , send photos of kids with big Ol smiles.

This is the real deal here, come sit in on a meeting, fill out a speaker card and speak your peace on this MLPA.

Not everyone is who they say they are
Many are in bed with eachother and just where is all this money coming from? Whos getting what for what? Oh yes my friends, some of us are fighting a good fight, while others are being funding with big big bucks.

We are out gunned and under funded,

get in the game

[KID CREOLE]

The White Sea Bass populations were rejuvenated from a COMBINATION of keeper length management, take limit and annual closures during certain times of year, along with the hatchery process.

I think the solution in this proposal is probably due to the fact that the situation is dire and the cost to fund hatchery programs is too great.


Where is a white seabass closure zone?

[KID CREOLE]

Kid Creole,

While I have not fully researched an answer to your question, I believe Storm Crow hit on one of a couple snap responses I had for you.

While I know shutting down certain areas are horrible to most of us, I think that it does help. We did not get into this situation overnight, and I do not think that the solution will correct itself overnight either. Look at the salmon, tuna and abalone issues.

Every little bit helps, whether it be donating time, money or brainstorming during these critical meetings. I think it would be great to get a few people from FNN together to brainstorm and get a petition signed for consideration. I have been having more fun fishing the socal fisheries than any other place, so this issue would affect me.

Kevin

Salmon, many issues there, how do the MLPAs help the salmon in the summer time in southern California, the water is typically too warm? The majority of the salmon I have caught in southern California have been further than 3 miles off the beach

Abalone has been over harvested and restrictions have gone into effect!

How do the MLPAs help tuna fishing, how many tuna have you caught within 3 miles of the coast?

Keep in mind, both salmon and tuna for the most part migrate to southern California they don't spawn here.

[Howling Mad Murdock]

KC,

I think you are missing my point entirely. Just like the MLPA, there are restrictions, closures and other limitations on harvesting these species to help repopulate the species.

At any rate, I will look into researching the discussion we have goign at the moment, in between the time I have reading general plans and zoning ordinances.


Kevin

[KID CREOLE]

KC,

I think you are missing my point entirely. Just like the MLPA, there are restrictions, closures and other limitations on harvesting these species to help repopulate the species.

At any rate, I will look into researching the discussion we have goign at the moment, in between the time I have reading general plans and zoning ordinances.


Kevin

Kevin,

IMHO ther is no difference in managing fish stock over wildlife. If you look at the size and locations of these closures it's clear there is more to them than meets the eye.

Please if you find out anymore info let me know!

Fortunately, fish is only something I do between hunting seasons as my passion is waterfowl(ducks and geese) The majority of duck and goose populations fluorish, not because of closures but becasue of great management by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and hunters like myself who contribute to Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl and Delta Waterfowl.

Management not closures is the answer, especially with the state of California going broke!

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Fisherman57]

I am posting this for Dick Giuliani...

His letter concerning the MLPA recently appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Please direct any comments or questions regarding the letter to Dick at:
DPGIULIANI@aol.com



http://www.latimes.com/images/standard/lat_logo_inner.gif (http://www.latimes.com/) Opinion (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion)
The Marine Life Protection Act mess



Proposed fishing reserves under the Marine Life Protection Act would be disastrous for California.
By Dick Giuliani
March 25, 2009


I have followed from its inception the ongoing Marine Life Protection Act process that was the subject of a March 20 article (http://bit.ly/1u3A3y) by Louis Sahagun. I have heard repeatedly from MLPA advocates that we are amicable groups seeking the same goals of preservation of the resource. Let me assure you all, in no uncertain terms, this is not an amicable process. This is an adversarial process in which we seek to maintain our rights to fish in California waters, while the MLPA backers seek to eliminate as much productive fishing area as they can under the fallacious argument that it would protect the resource. They have also stated that the economic impact of closures is speculative, but I submit the following thoughts.

The state of California has just passed a $100-billion budget that will not be enough to get us through the current economic crisis, yet the MLPA advocates seek to eliminate a multibillion-dollar industry with callous disregard for the impact on tax revenues derived from all sources related to the fishing industry. Rentals and sales of boats, trailers, equipment, fishing tackle and fuel, as well as boat maintenance, berthing and launch fees, all generate tax revenue for the state of California. The decline in business revenue and the resulting loss of jobs would be devastating at a time when the state unemployment rate is above 10%. Last year at least six tackle stores either went bankrupt or had to close their doors. Considering the current economic climate, we cannot afford the loss of jobs or the tremendous loss of state tax revenue resulting from fishing closures. We all surely understand that the state of California cannot and will not abide the loss of tax revenue from the sources listed above. All taxpayers, not just those who enjoy outdoor sports and entertainment, would have to pay more to replace the revenue lost as a result of the MLPA closures.

While the state of California would lose millions from the closures, UC Santa Barbara and others would no doubt receive millions in federal or state grants to continue studying this issue. Advocates of the closures have stated there would be no financial problems caused by carrying out the marine reserve plan, as their groups have private sources of funding. (The agenda and goal of the sources of this private funding are certainly suspect.) The initial 1999 estimate for scientific monitoring, public outreach and enforcement was $250,000 annually. That figure is now expected to approach $35 million per year, and many believe this estimate may be far short of the actual funds needed. We can also be assured that these costs will increase dramatically, as they do for all government programs. In addition, this figure may only apply to the closures along the North and Central coasts. These financial projections are now correctly being challenged by state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter).

My friends, we have reached an impasse, and if we are to arrest this draconian process of massive closures, we must seek alternatives to this process as currently conducted. Another thing to consider is that, to my knowledge, no closures in the past have ever been reversed. I believe only the Legislature can curtail this agenda, and it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to admonish our lawmakers to, if not eliminate the MLPA, at least postpone the implementation until such time as the state's fiscal situation improves.

Dick Giuliani is a retiree and recreational fisherman from Eagle Rock who works part-time in a tackle shop.



----------------------------------------------------------------




State Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez To Investigate MLPA Funding
By Ed Zieralski
March 29, 2009, 12:43 p.m.


It's just a guess, but Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman and Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton soon may be sweating in their seats while being grilled by state senators over Sutton's alleged conflicts of interest and the funding of the Marine Life Protection Act.

Sen. Dean Florez, a Democrat from Shafter, is a powerful man, and it's not nice to try and dupe powerful men.
Florez is the state Senate Majority Leader and also recently was named the Democratic caucus chairman of the new budget oversight committee. Considering the state's dire financial situation, that is one very important job that Sen. Florez has taken. He'll be in charge of reaching into the state's wallet for funds, and he's going to want to know what is worthwhile and what isn't. And right now he's asking probing questions about the Marine Life Protection Act that calls for a statewide network of marine protected areas and no fishing zones off California .

Florez joined other state senators such as Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) in the search for answers about the MLPA process and its funding. California Fish and Game Commissioner Dan Richards of Upland initiated the questions months ago when he asked the Department of Fish and Game to provide a detailed analysis of the costs of potential fishing closures off the coast of California .
Commissioner Richards now has been joined by these key state senators who want to know how this fisheries Act, which was passed in 1999, went from potentially costing the state $250,000 a year to a projected cost of $30 million to $40 million a year once all the marine protected areas are in place. Thus far, closures are in place off the Central Coast , and the environmental impact report for the North Central Coast was released this week by the Department of Fish and Game. The Fish and Game Commission will vote on those closures later in the year.

Florez' questions surfaced in a big way Saturday night at a Coastside Fishing Club fundraiser in San Rafael . Florez' topic was, according to sources there: "The runaway cost of the MLPA and the special interests running the process."
Florez told the recreational anglers he will call a hearing to look deeply into MLPA process to see why the projected costs went from $250,000 a year to an estimated $35 million per year to run. He told the anglers he has the blessing of Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D – Sacramento ) to go forward with the investigation. Florez will call Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman before the Committee and ask him about MLPA funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest.

Florez told the group he wants to know why Commissioner Michael Sutton failed to list his income from the Monterey Bay Aquarium on state Form 700 during the Commission vetting process.
Florez specifically said he wants to find out if Sutton, who is an officer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, has conflicts of interest regarding the Marine Life Protection Act. Sutton once was an officer in the Packard Foundation, and the Packard Foundation, through the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, is funding the MLPA process. Thus far, the RLFF has poured over $18 million into the MLPA process to keep it going at a time when state funds are shrinking. The Packard Foundation also gave over $123 million over three years to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where Sutton works.

Sources close to the MLPA process say Chrisman, Sutton and MLPA Initiative staff, particularly executive director Ken Wiseman, are growing increasingly nervous about questions about Sutton's conflicts of interest and the funding of the process.

Sources say Wiseman has resorted to calling key members of the South Coast Stakeholders Group, which is in the process of forming fishing closures off Southern California , and has asked that they tone down their criticism of the funding and the process.

Chrisman and Sutton have both gone on record saying it's not important that the money isn't there to fund the MLPA. Sutton was quoted saying if the Fish and Game Commission waited for money from the Legislature, no fish and game regulations would ever pass.

Meantime, the state is in the throes of deep budget cuts, mandatory furlough days for state employees. It faces a $42 billion deficit that could grow to $50, depending on the outcome of voter propositions set for May.

Sources indicate the Department of Fish and Game has been ordered to complete detailed reports about what has been spent on the MLPA process, what is being spent now and what will it cost to implement all the fishing closures and marine protected areas once this process is complete.

The DFG reported back to the Commission at Commissioner Dan Richards' request earlier on the estimated costs of the entire MLPA, and that's how the figure of $30 million to $40 million was reached. That money would cover the necessary scientific monitoring, law enforcement and public outreach.

All this for a DFG that recently had to stock sub-catchable trout, some with parr markings, in Southern California and Eastern Sierra waters because it couldn't afford trout food at its hatcheries.

[uscjeffer]

Was sent this...need a little more help....

To Everyone Concerned With The Threat of MPAs

Friendly State Senators (Senators Florez, Ducheny and Hollingsworth) share our concerns and are interested in pursuing a Legislative review of the MLPA process and the creation of MPAs. To do so they need the support and permission of the leader in the Senate, President proTem Steinberg. MPA advocates are pressing him to stop any investigation. It is critical that everyone contact Senator Steinberg with the following message: CALL his office and FAX it to his office also (see below for numbers).


April 1, 2009

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg

President Pro Tempore

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA 95814



Dear Senator Steinberg:



The Marine Life Protection Act process requires oversight by the Legislature to ensure compliance with the law. I urge the Senate to exercise its oversight authority to investigate the numerous conflicts-of-interest in the MLPA process; the lack of funding to adequately carry out the program; and the inequitable single focus on fishing to fix the ocean. Further, I urge the Senate to investigate the cost of implementing the MLPA in light of California’s unprecedented budget shortfall. Without funding for science, monitoring and enforcement, huge sections of the ocean will be closed to fishing forever. This will unnecessarily impact the economy of coastal businesses and seafood consumers at the worst possible time in this terrible recession.

Thank you for considering my views.

Name

Address

City, CA zip

Phone number



Please call Senator Steinberg's office with this message and also print it out and Fax it today! His numbers are:

Phone – 916-651-4006

FAX - 916-323-2263

THIS IS IMPORTANT!

[bones]

Thanks Dana.....Wow !!!! What a great read!
If that doesn't get folks wound up and willing to be proactive....Nothing will !!!!!

[bones]

Was sent this...need a little more help....

To Everyone Concerned With The Threat of MPAs

Friendly State Senators (Senators Florez, Ducheny and Hollingsworth) share our concerns and are interested in pursuing a Legislative review of the MLPA process and the creation of MPAs. To do so they need the support and permission of the leader in the Senate, President proTem Steinberg. MPA advocates are pressing him to stop any investigation. It is critical that everyone contact Senator Steinberg with the following message: CALL his office and FAX it to his office also (see below for numbers).


April 1, 2009

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg

President Pro Tempore

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA 95814



Dear Senator Steinberg:



The Marine Life Protection Act process requires oversight by the Legislature to ensure compliance with the law. I urge the Senate to exercise its oversight authority to investigate the numerous conflicts-of-interest in the MLPA process; the lack of funding to adequately carry out the program; and the inequitable single focus on fishing to fix the ocean. Further, I urge the Senate to investigate the cost of implementing the MLPA in light of California’s unprecedented budget shortfall. Without funding for science, monitoring and enforcement, huge sections of the ocean will be closed to fishing forever. This will unnecessarily impact the economy of coastal businesses and seafood consumers at the worst possible time in this terrible recession.

Thank you for considering my views.

Name

Address

City, CA zip

Phone number



Please call Senator Steinberg's office with this message and also print it out and Fax it today! His numbers are:

Phone – 916-651-4006

FAX - 916-323-2263

THIS IS IMPORTANT!

Thanks USCJEFFER

[bones]

Might as well add this here......

A websight to keep everyone informed also...

http://www.yesfishing.org/

[lurk 182]

ah ha. now things are starting to make some sense. business as usual in sacramento. Packard foundation giving $123 million to the aquarium over three years, pretty generous. i'm guessing the aquarium will be heavily involved in (and compensated for) the "scientific monitoring" that will be required from now on. shocking that he forgot to mention this potential conflict.