GeordyBass
10-30-2009, 08:55 PM
I copied this directly from another Website:
_____________________________________________
Email Campaign for MAP 2!!
The short of it...
Anti-Fishing groups have sent thousands of emails to the BRTF for map 3. We need to match them.
*****Time is limited, BRTF meets on 11/10/09 to decide our fate.
Please email
SUBJECT LINE: "South Coast comment for BRTF."
Along with MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov
Please CC: angler4prop2@gmail.com
Tell them you support Map 2.
PLEASE USE Your can use your own words, but if at least send something like the sample below.
This is a simple email I put together for friends, co-workers, family.
To: MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov
Subject: South Coast comment for BRTF
Cc: angler4prop2@gmail.com
Dear Members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force,
I am writing in support of Map 2. I believe it has the appropriate balance of conservation and consumption, and it meets all of the science guidelines. The other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines (deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar) yet have a big impact on San Diego’s heritage of recreational fishing and it’s local fishing related economy. Map 2 has the most cross interest support, and the buy-in of consumptive fishermen. San Diego’s fishing community has a history of actively supporting conservation issues and enthusiastically following DFG regulations to manage the species. La Jolla is especially important to kayak anglers with it’s protected launch, and kayak anglers are environmentally friendly using human powered vessels. Please support Map 2 for the Southern California MLPA process.
Thank you,
Your Name
Address
Phone Number
The long of it! read below!
General letter targets will be announced shortly.
1. Support Prop 2 for San Diego, where it meets all science guidelines and lessens economic impact. Captures the rare deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar. Other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines because they do not.
2. If the task force closes south La Jolla, enlarges the existing reserve and grows the SMCA proposed for the pier all the way up to Torrey Pines (BOOKENDS), there will be many negative impacts:
- Compaction will cause a threat to public safety. We'll have to share a tiny area with sportboats, private boats, commercial boats, free divers and kayakers. People will get hurt, most likely a free diver or kayaker.
- Small changes make big differences for kayak anglers. The paddle out from the Shores would go from 1/2 a mile to roughly 2/3 and take out roughly 20% of the east-west extent of the north kelp line. Novices would be pushed out from the shelter of Pt La Jolla out to more open water.
- The existing Scripps MPA boundaries are well known. The new bouys are well maintained and not prone to drifting. Boundary signs with maps are numerous.
- The bait-only SMCA proposed for the pier and north is not needed to meet science guidelines. The habitats that would be protected are represented elsewhere in the study region. It would have a big impact on the local surf-casting community, who would have virtually no fishable sandy beaches the length of La Jolla.
More local info!
Guys and gals,
November 10 is when the BRTF will convene to make their final decision and finish up the work they deferred from their Oct. 21-23 meeting. Between now and Nov. 5th, letters and faxes need to be sent.
We need to put down the hammer on our letter writing and faxing.
The other side brags that there are thousands of emails supporting Proposal 3, and only a handful supporting proposal 1 and 2. I have a hard time believing that there are more Prop 3 supporters than Prop 2 supporters, but the email process is out of our view.
We can only verify what we see.
We need to counter this because that's not representative of the public and unless the BRTF recognizes this, we are screwed by the financially-powerful private interests.
I don't have trust (call me cynical) that ALL our pro-group 2 emails will be accurately counted. So I want to independently verify the number of emails that we sent to the BRTF, just to make sure the process of collecting those emails is forwarding them all to the BRTF.
Call me skeptical but there is NO effing way, looking at the previous meeting statistics, that the pro-Group 3 people can have more people than we do. No effing way looking at the huge majority of black shirts in each meeting.
Some thing is wrong and it's skewing the BRTF's perception of public support. May be nothing is wrong but I'm not trusting the numbers. And I just want to make sure all our emails are accounted for.
1) We have established an email box for BDERS to email your letter to angler4prop2@gmail.com IN ADDITION (PARALLEL--CC us) to your emailing it to MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov. This will be the collection point and verification of the number of emails spearos have sent. We'll do the same thing for other communities.
Please email to both MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov and angler4prop2@gmail.com, Subject line "South Coast comment for BRTF."
I will run a running tally of the numbers, compare it with the official numbers they claim they receive, and make sure that no funny stuff goes on, and make sure that consumptive emails for Prop 2 are not undercounted. But unless you also send the email to our independent verification email box (angler4prop2@gmail.com), we can't argue when we feel the numbers are not right.
Here are the possible arguments when you guys do your letters.
For San Diego (the area I know):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Support Prop 2 for San Diego, where it meets all science guidelines and lessens economic impact. Captures the rare deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar. Other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines because they do not.
2. Argue strenuously against the closure of South La Jolla. If the task force closes south La Jolla, enlarges the existing reserve and grows the SMCA proposed for the pier all the way up to Torrey Pines (BOOKENDS), there will be many negative impacts:
- Compaction will cause a huge threat to public safety. We'll have to share a tiny area with sportboats, private boats, commercial boats, free divers and kayakers. People will get hurt, most likely a free diver or kayaker.
- South La Jolla is critically important to local commercial lobster and urchin and to the sportboat landings in Mission Bay. Remember, in years the current runs predominately uphill, south La Jolla grows in importance to us too. Besides, north Pt Loma is more suitable as it offers the most persistent kelp forest in Southern California. When there's no kelp in LJ, its still hanging on at north Pt Loma. The economic and access hits are much lighter.
For Laguna: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
WG2 shape takes into account ALL the guidelines set forth by the DFG as to size and shape, and as to special areas to avoid as well as to consider. There is NO shape for Laguna that can meet 100% of all habitat requirements. One of the goals of the MLPA master plan guidance was to NOT disenfranchise the consumptive public. While shapes like the alternative shape put forth by the BRTF would not completely stifle boat fishing, it WOULD effectively kill shore based fishing and diving practices. These beaches are some of the traditional dive spots, from before the time of Scuba. People have fished from the shore in Laguna since the town's inception, and as a consumptive user, we lost the opportunity to fish from Aliso Pier with it's destruction by large surf and subsequent removal. The shape brought forth by WG 2 would at the least allow 5 coastal access points out of 26. That is a MINIMAL amount of accessible beach to fish from. The state has deemed public access to be mandatory to beachfront areas, and much of those easements were designed and fought for by shore based fishermen.
Even the Surfrider foundation agreed with the shape and design of WG2's proposal, though they asked for the upper line to be moved to the north.
The alternate shape for Laguna NOT being actively discussed at this moment is the one in which the boundary lines are perpendicular to shore. Starting At Cress St. which has an unmistakable boundary on the beach, along with a clearly visible boiler rock 1/3 mile off shore is THE SIMPLEST shape of all to enforce, and for the public at large to follow. Whether fishing from a boat or kayak, the line of the rock to the outcropping on the beach, coupled with the road above make following the rules for this shape simple. The northern boundary would be at Emerald Cove, from the large boiler at the headland. Yet another unmistakable clear boundary. The shape is larger than WG2, and it does capture more nearshore habitat by design. Also, it will close off some more access points than WG2. But, it would STILL leave us 5 good access points, and would give anglers of all types a bit of safe, dependable access to the shoreline in Laguna, while protecting miles of great habitat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For PV: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
Southern PV is loaded with DDT and PCB's, DDT is known to cause a 10% or more rise in infant deaths due to decreased lactation time in breastfeeding mothers. Low income families that have to fish to sustain themselves have no choice but to expose themselves to larger amounts of DDT than the rest of the population, and would be in a considerable health risk if map 1 or 3 closures pass which would force them into the more polluted southern PV.
The pipe, which is situated within the northern boundary of map 1 concentrates all of the pollution from Palos Verdes Estates into one outfall. The currents immediately carry this pollution directly into the closures proposed by map 3. Walk-throughs after rainfall have shown lifeless tidepools, and the polluted water that collects in a pool under the pipe after the rainfall kills 99% plants within 10 feet of it. As the Santa Monica Baykeepers have confirmed, outfall pipes contain heavy metals, specifically copper, and all marine biologists agree that copper is 100% fatal to the invertebrate microfauna that make up the base of the food chain. Every time that it rains here the base of the food chain has to start again from square one. Heavy metals and some pesticides have been shown to slow the growth rate of fish while adversely affecting their fertility rates, which with map 1 and 3 closures will lead to MPA's with smaller, more sterile fish. Map 2 contains the terranea resort, which already has wells and filtration in place for the cleanest rainwater outfall in the entire southern california area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Point Dume: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
Dume talking points have everything to do with access and safety. Support Prop 2 which leaves Dume Pt open and still meets SAT guidelines for habitat replication as well as the alternative. 1 and 3 strike hard at already rare public access - even consumptives deserve a sliver of opportunity. Putting the line at Little Dume will shut off locally precious access to free divers and surf casters at Westward. And finally, that last bathroom at Westward is an ideal boundary, obvious from the shore and the ocean.
_____________________________________________
Email Campaign for MAP 2!!
The short of it...
Anti-Fishing groups have sent thousands of emails to the BRTF for map 3. We need to match them.
*****Time is limited, BRTF meets on 11/10/09 to decide our fate.
Please email
SUBJECT LINE: "South Coast comment for BRTF."
Along with MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov
Please CC: angler4prop2@gmail.com
Tell them you support Map 2.
PLEASE USE Your can use your own words, but if at least send something like the sample below.
This is a simple email I put together for friends, co-workers, family.
To: MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov
Subject: South Coast comment for BRTF
Cc: angler4prop2@gmail.com
Dear Members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force,
I am writing in support of Map 2. I believe it has the appropriate balance of conservation and consumption, and it meets all of the science guidelines. The other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines (deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar) yet have a big impact on San Diego’s heritage of recreational fishing and it’s local fishing related economy. Map 2 has the most cross interest support, and the buy-in of consumptive fishermen. San Diego’s fishing community has a history of actively supporting conservation issues and enthusiastically following DFG regulations to manage the species. La Jolla is especially important to kayak anglers with it’s protected launch, and kayak anglers are environmentally friendly using human powered vessels. Please support Map 2 for the Southern California MLPA process.
Thank you,
Your Name
Address
Phone Number
The long of it! read below!
General letter targets will be announced shortly.
1. Support Prop 2 for San Diego, where it meets all science guidelines and lessens economic impact. Captures the rare deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar. Other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines because they do not.
2. If the task force closes south La Jolla, enlarges the existing reserve and grows the SMCA proposed for the pier all the way up to Torrey Pines (BOOKENDS), there will be many negative impacts:
- Compaction will cause a threat to public safety. We'll have to share a tiny area with sportboats, private boats, commercial boats, free divers and kayakers. People will get hurt, most likely a free diver or kayaker.
- Small changes make big differences for kayak anglers. The paddle out from the Shores would go from 1/2 a mile to roughly 2/3 and take out roughly 20% of the east-west extent of the north kelp line. Novices would be pushed out from the shelter of Pt La Jolla out to more open water.
- The existing Scripps MPA boundaries are well known. The new bouys are well maintained and not prone to drifting. Boundary signs with maps are numerous.
- The bait-only SMCA proposed for the pier and north is not needed to meet science guidelines. The habitats that would be protected are represented elsewhere in the study region. It would have a big impact on the local surf-casting community, who would have virtually no fishable sandy beaches the length of La Jolla.
More local info!
Guys and gals,
November 10 is when the BRTF will convene to make their final decision and finish up the work they deferred from their Oct. 21-23 meeting. Between now and Nov. 5th, letters and faxes need to be sent.
We need to put down the hammer on our letter writing and faxing.
The other side brags that there are thousands of emails supporting Proposal 3, and only a handful supporting proposal 1 and 2. I have a hard time believing that there are more Prop 3 supporters than Prop 2 supporters, but the email process is out of our view.
We can only verify what we see.
We need to counter this because that's not representative of the public and unless the BRTF recognizes this, we are screwed by the financially-powerful private interests.
I don't have trust (call me cynical) that ALL our pro-group 2 emails will be accurately counted. So I want to independently verify the number of emails that we sent to the BRTF, just to make sure the process of collecting those emails is forwarding them all to the BRTF.
Call me skeptical but there is NO effing way, looking at the previous meeting statistics, that the pro-Group 3 people can have more people than we do. No effing way looking at the huge majority of black shirts in each meeting.
Some thing is wrong and it's skewing the BRTF's perception of public support. May be nothing is wrong but I'm not trusting the numbers. And I just want to make sure all our emails are accounted for.
1) We have established an email box for BDERS to email your letter to angler4prop2@gmail.com IN ADDITION (PARALLEL--CC us) to your emailing it to MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov. This will be the collection point and verification of the number of emails spearos have sent. We'll do the same thing for other communities.
Please email to both MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov and angler4prop2@gmail.com, Subject line "South Coast comment for BRTF."
I will run a running tally of the numbers, compare it with the official numbers they claim they receive, and make sure that no funny stuff goes on, and make sure that consumptive emails for Prop 2 are not undercounted. But unless you also send the email to our independent verification email box (angler4prop2@gmail.com), we can't argue when we feel the numbers are not right.
Here are the possible arguments when you guys do your letters.
For San Diego (the area I know):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Support Prop 2 for San Diego, where it meets all science guidelines and lessens economic impact. Captures the rare deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar. Other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines because they do not.
2. Argue strenuously against the closure of South La Jolla. If the task force closes south La Jolla, enlarges the existing reserve and grows the SMCA proposed for the pier all the way up to Torrey Pines (BOOKENDS), there will be many negative impacts:
- Compaction will cause a huge threat to public safety. We'll have to share a tiny area with sportboats, private boats, commercial boats, free divers and kayakers. People will get hurt, most likely a free diver or kayaker.
- South La Jolla is critically important to local commercial lobster and urchin and to the sportboat landings in Mission Bay. Remember, in years the current runs predominately uphill, south La Jolla grows in importance to us too. Besides, north Pt Loma is more suitable as it offers the most persistent kelp forest in Southern California. When there's no kelp in LJ, its still hanging on at north Pt Loma. The economic and access hits are much lighter.
For Laguna: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
WG2 shape takes into account ALL the guidelines set forth by the DFG as to size and shape, and as to special areas to avoid as well as to consider. There is NO shape for Laguna that can meet 100% of all habitat requirements. One of the goals of the MLPA master plan guidance was to NOT disenfranchise the consumptive public. While shapes like the alternative shape put forth by the BRTF would not completely stifle boat fishing, it WOULD effectively kill shore based fishing and diving practices. These beaches are some of the traditional dive spots, from before the time of Scuba. People have fished from the shore in Laguna since the town's inception, and as a consumptive user, we lost the opportunity to fish from Aliso Pier with it's destruction by large surf and subsequent removal. The shape brought forth by WG 2 would at the least allow 5 coastal access points out of 26. That is a MINIMAL amount of accessible beach to fish from. The state has deemed public access to be mandatory to beachfront areas, and much of those easements were designed and fought for by shore based fishermen.
Even the Surfrider foundation agreed with the shape and design of WG2's proposal, though they asked for the upper line to be moved to the north.
The alternate shape for Laguna NOT being actively discussed at this moment is the one in which the boundary lines are perpendicular to shore. Starting At Cress St. which has an unmistakable boundary on the beach, along with a clearly visible boiler rock 1/3 mile off shore is THE SIMPLEST shape of all to enforce, and for the public at large to follow. Whether fishing from a boat or kayak, the line of the rock to the outcropping on the beach, coupled with the road above make following the rules for this shape simple. The northern boundary would be at Emerald Cove, from the large boiler at the headland. Yet another unmistakable clear boundary. The shape is larger than WG2, and it does capture more nearshore habitat by design. Also, it will close off some more access points than WG2. But, it would STILL leave us 5 good access points, and would give anglers of all types a bit of safe, dependable access to the shoreline in Laguna, while protecting miles of great habitat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For PV: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
Southern PV is loaded with DDT and PCB's, DDT is known to cause a 10% or more rise in infant deaths due to decreased lactation time in breastfeeding mothers. Low income families that have to fish to sustain themselves have no choice but to expose themselves to larger amounts of DDT than the rest of the population, and would be in a considerable health risk if map 1 or 3 closures pass which would force them into the more polluted southern PV.
The pipe, which is situated within the northern boundary of map 1 concentrates all of the pollution from Palos Verdes Estates into one outfall. The currents immediately carry this pollution directly into the closures proposed by map 3. Walk-throughs after rainfall have shown lifeless tidepools, and the polluted water that collects in a pool under the pipe after the rainfall kills 99% plants within 10 feet of it. As the Santa Monica Baykeepers have confirmed, outfall pipes contain heavy metals, specifically copper, and all marine biologists agree that copper is 100% fatal to the invertebrate microfauna that make up the base of the food chain. Every time that it rains here the base of the food chain has to start again from square one. Heavy metals and some pesticides have been shown to slow the growth rate of fish while adversely affecting their fertility rates, which with map 1 and 3 closures will lead to MPA's with smaller, more sterile fish. Map 2 contains the terranea resort, which already has wells and filtration in place for the cleanest rainwater outfall in the entire southern california area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Point Dume: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
Dume talking points have everything to do with access and safety. Support Prop 2 which leaves Dume Pt open and still meets SAT guidelines for habitat replication as well as the alternative. 1 and 3 strike hard at already rare public access - even consumptives deserve a sliver of opportunity. Putting the line at Little Dume will shut off locally precious access to free divers and surf casters at Westward. And finally, that last bathroom at Westward is an ideal boundary, obvious from the shore and the ocean.