MLPA PENDING CLOSURE MAPS - Download

[Fisherman57]

Note:

None of these maps are final until they have been approved by the DFG...... but keep in mind, these maps are no longer subject to public debate and or influence.........


http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA001.jpg

http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA002.jpg

http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA003.jpg

http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA004.jpg

http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA005.jpg

http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA006.jpg

http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA007.jpg

http://fishinghotpage.com/users/tmp3/MLPA008.jpg




Here's a link if you'd like to download and print these maps.....

http://resources.ca.gov/mlpa_scrsg/Integrated%20Preferred%20Alternative/MLPA_IPA_Maps__ALL_091117.pdf

Also, each conservation area (blue areas on the map) has it's own individual restrictions. Some allow hook and line fishing while others only allow spear fishing restricted to white sea bass and bonito.
Click on the link below for more details.....

http://resources.ca.gov/mlpa_scrsg/Integrated%20Preferred%20Alternative/SC_BRTF_Motion_091118.pdf (http://resources.ca.gov/mlpa_scrsg/Integrated%20Preferred%20Alternative/SC_BRTF_Motion_091118.pdf)


I'll add more info to this thread as it becomes available..........

[sansou]

Thanks for posting these Dana. I know you went straight to the source to get these after a back and forth of emails.

[Wingnut]

Thanks Dana!

[klocked]

Here's a link to a document at the DFG sent in by the RSG, that describes in good detail, the rationale for workgroup 2's site specific preferences for smca's, smr's, etc...

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/scrsg_r3_prop2_supp.pdf

This is the 3rd and final map from our favorite RSG's:LOL:

I can only hope that with the DFG's comments on how un-enforceable maps 1 and 3 are, that the DFG will opt for map 2.

EDIT: Keep in mind that all of the maps will be submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission, not just this Integrated Preferred Alternative(IPA). This map is just that... "an alternative" to the other three.
That is my understanding of it, from what I've read elsewhere.

[DockRat]

Thanks for the post. Laguna sure got hammered. I feel those guys pain.
The PBers in Dana and Newport are totally bummed. La Jolla, Dune too. Boycott Laguna since the City Council
voted for it. It sucks to lose Pt Vicente to Long Pt. Those killer Boiler Rocks and Pinnicles gone, xlnt scallop spot too, gone.

What about the Urchin Divers ? Can they go to Pt Vicente anymore ?
This one guy I saw off loading a few weeks ago on Terminal Island and he had 300 lbs for a mournings work.
Big ones too 5" to 8". If they can't harvest then there goes the kelp.

LESS HABITAT DUE TO THE MLPA ? :Finger:

Urchins eat the Hold Root.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b380/cole5x/kelp.jpg

Since the MPA starts at the High Tide Line if a kid in Laguna digs up some Sand Crabs and puts them in his bucket then
That Kid Is In Violation and his parent could be ticketed. Same goes for Sea Shells, Rocks. It's not just fish people.

Looks like Pt Conception lower part goes to The Ranch, Coho Pt ?
That area is awesome. I worked up there on a dive boat for a week in the 80's and we anchored at Coho
and dove Conception every day a hour before sunrise with the Mini Sub.
It would be blown out by 8:30 am so we would go back to Coho.

Check out http://keeprockypointopen.com/

http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l350/bikerdi/Florida%20Wild/Along%20the%20Beach/DSCN0647b.jpg How about these girls ?

They could be Killing Sand Crabs doing this kind of activity in a Marine Protected Area MPA below the high tide line.

The taking or killing of any Marine species in a MPA will be a violation under the new law.


To Report a Poacher or Polluter
If you witness a poaching or polluting incident or any fish and wildlife violation, or have information about such a violation, immediately dial the toll free CalTIP number

(or any fish and wildlife violation) like killing Sand crabs in a MPA

1 888 DFG-CALTIP (888 334-2258), 24 hours a day, seven days a week.






For PV info.
DR

[Katnip]

D.f.g. Don't fish

[GeordyBass]

yeahup. I knew it. I'm ticked. Let's give them hippies hell,,,lol,,, Legalize Pot,but Outlaw fishing??? WTH??? Damn it. Those people have too much $$$ to care about jobs lost and have some extremely biased beliefs and are brainwashed by some individuals who are extremely ignorant to their beliefs. They rather "save" some damn sand crabs and croaker than protect the humans losing their jobs and lifestyle. Who are they to decide what the hell we do? I decide what I want to do (stuff that's lawful and reasonable). We as Americans are losing our constitutional rights to have recreational fun because of some unnescessary organizations like Coastkeeper, Packard Foundation(HP computers), Heal the Bay....etc. Instead of spending millions of dollars to this act, why not fund schools? My teachers have to pay for their own materials! Those people should invest their money on Schools, Shelters, Police(etc), and lastly cleaning up pollution in our ocean. There is nothing to be done on pollution, they don't care; They hate seeing anything in or on OUR(American!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Ocean!! This isn't a communist country, but sure looks to be getting there! "*'ll go fish in an MPA by **self and let's see what they'll do to ** as a xminorx"..... "I am not liable to any actions stated above". I'm an American Citizen, With love to MY Country, And nobody owns the ocean, not DFG, they are suppose to stop poaching, illegal activities, well now fishing is "illegal" too in said areas. We'll Geo Rdy disapproves with a special finger and grin in face. Thanks for posting the maps 57, I wrote 12% of my thoughts and kept it clean.

[DockRat]

Nice Rant !

But we got blindsided in 1999 when this law was passed.
So Much BS from the blue shirt yes on 3 crowd. Misinformed A holes.
DR

[rusty6]

am i the only person on this website who feels it may be a good thing that there are more protected areas of coastline? I mean, why is everyone on this website so adimantly against the conservation of our planet? "Oh no, i can't fish my favorite spot anymore!" Boo friggin hoo, its the god **** ocean, its HUGE! Why is it so difficult for any of you to just suck it up, move on, and find new places to fish. With all that horrible stuff that we do to our planet, I'm glad some people are taking steps to help reduce our impact on at least some areas of our coast

[rusty6]

and fyi, if you didnt look, probably about 90% of that map is still fishable...there's bound to be plenty of fish to catch in those areas...

[Fisherman57]

am i the only person on this website who feels it may be a good thing that there are more protected areas of coastline? I mean, why is everyone on this website so adimantly against the conservation of our planet? "Oh no, i can't fish my favorite spot anymore!" Boo friggin hoo, its the god **** ocean, its HUGE! Why is it so difficult for any of you to just suck it up, move on, and find new places to fish. With all that horrible stuff that we do to our planet, I'm glad some people are taking steps to help reduce our impact on at least some areas of our coast


and fyi, if you didnt look, probably about 90% of that map is still fishable...there's bound to be plenty of fish to catch in those areas...


Assuming "everyone on this website" feels the same is obviously not an accurate statement.

I'd like to think that most members speak for themselves and not on behalf of others. The fact is, this was a public debate-able issue and everyone was encouraged to voice their opinions. If this was a "save the planet" website, Im sure the overwhelming bulk of the comments would be in favor of all the closures.... but its not. Its a fishing website. So I understand the comments being in mostly one direction.

With that said, you're correct, there are certain things that we ALL need to do to help protect all the resources we have for future generations. The best thing anyone can do is educate themselves on the issues at hand and then get involved.

Ive read tons of opinions from both sides in regards to the MLPA..... and BOTH sides have points to be taken seriously. In the end, this was about reaching an agreement that worked for everyone, not just one particular community. The problem is, some feel that never happened.



57

[Cangler]

am i the only person on this website who feels it may be a good thing that there are more protected areas of coastline? I mean, why is everyone on this website so adimantly against the conservation of our planet? "Oh no, i can't fish my favorite spot anymore!" Boo friggin hoo, its the god **** ocean, its HUGE! Why is it so difficult for any of you to just suck it up, move on, and find new places to fish. With all that horrible stuff that we do to our planet, I'm glad some people are taking steps to help reduce our impact on at least some areas of our coast


You're not the only one man.
I kill what i catch , but conservation areas protect the future stocks

[bsp]

am i the only person on this website who feels it may be a good thing that there are more protected areas of coastline? I mean, why is everyone on this website so adimantly against the conservation of our planet? "Oh no, i can't fish my favorite spot anymore!" Boo friggin hoo, its the god **** ocean, its HUGE! Why is it so difficult for any of you to just suck it up, move on, and find new places to fish. With all that horrible stuff that we do to our planet, I'm glad some people are taking steps to help reduce our impact on at least some areas of our coast

Please become informed about this whole process before making comments like that. Also, I'm pretty offended that you're convinced everybody on this website is against conservation except yourself. I've participated in many independent conservation and clean up efforts, and pack out trash when I go fishing. CPR for me too on big breeder fish to protect the resource.

To sum it up, the MLPAs are an epic failure because we do not have the resources to enforce them, they are too much of an economic drain on a bankrupt state, the science used to support the closures was done by interest groups that wanted areas closed, and that science that was done was done shoddily. Basically, the whole process was incredibly biased against fishermen from the start and the conservation measures that it professes to put into place are unnecessarily large and arbitrary.

As for finding new places to fish, the MLPA has shut down the most productive areas. There are still huge areas availbale to fish, but those areas are desolate compared to what exists within the proposed MLPAs.

I'm in favor of lower bag limits, implementation of slot limits, and on and off months on CERTAIN species since measures like these proved to be highly successful in rehabilitating the striped bass fishery on the east coast. Blanket closures aren't compomises and are incredibly detrimental to local economies and fishermen as a whole. Smart regulations allow fishermen to still fish while sufficiently protecting necessary resources. The MLPA regulations are not smart regulations. They are emotionally driven garbage from environmental whack jobs who HATE fishermen with a passion because we kill their fishy friends.

What the MLPA fails to address and what destroys more eco-systems than any fisherman is pollution. That's my main issue with the whole thing. Habitat will continue to be destroyed, reef will die off, fish will mutate, and very little spawning will occur because of urban run-off and other forms of pollution.

[GeordyBass]

Hey Rusty6, before you say anything else, you are obviously right about conservation. But it means no fishing at all for surf and kayakers either as closed areas include easy kayak launch sites. You overlooked the big picture. Now that people fishing mackarel can't do it anymore, where will they go? Answer: LAKES! there will be a great amount of fisherman(mostly inexperienced) catchin largemouth bass, not knowing the regs and over taking the fish, and catching undersized ojes and taking them too. We'll have a great deal of boat traffic in our lakes which = more pollution Inland instead of offshore areas. Charter Boats are going out of business, bait docks, tackle shops, tourism.... well you see where I am going. Conservation is beautiful, but at that price is it worth the Extra thousands of jobs that will be lost... Isn't investing cleaning up the pollution and dump wasted in the ocean more important than closing down fishing? Yes there will be more fish growing, but alas; they will die anyways because they won't spend money on a water treatment system and the fish will get sick. Do you need anymore bro? And good responce 57, many people here like conservationalism, like "judging a book by its cover"...... Geordybass has spoken and responded.

[DockRat]

To sum it up, the MLPAs are an epic failure because we do not have the resources to enforce them, they are too much of an economic drain on a bankrupt state, the science used to support the closures was done by interest groups that wanted areas closed, and that science that was done was done shoddily. Basically, the whole process was incredibly biased against fishermen from the start and the conservation measures that it professes to put into place are unnecessarily large and arbitrary.



What the MLPA fails to address and what destroys more eco-systems than any fisherman is pollution. That's my main issue with the whole thing. Habitat will continue to be destroyed, reef will die off, fish will mutate, and very little spawning will occur because of urban run-off and other forms of pollution.


:Worship:

Yah No kidding. Shotty Science. What a joke.

Fix Ballona Creek, LA River, San Gabrial River FIRST.
The pollution dumping into LB Harbor is insane. The Trash Boom by Ocean Ave only gets about 10%. Last year on the first rain dumped 80 tons of trash into the Port followed by the second big flush that dumped 120 tons of trash.

From the LA River all the way to Belmont Pier was 6' wide of trash. Plastic Bottles, Plastic Bags, and SPRAY CANS every 5' for miles. Thanks Taggers for pitching your cans in the storm drain.

I have pics of it. Then the City of Long Beach brings in Big Payloader's and scoops it all up in 2 days so the tourists don't see it.
40' Roll off dumpsters lined up as they do the speed cleanup.

At the Boom on LA River they filled a dozen 40' dumpsters.

Fix Urban Runoff Pollution

DR

[sansou]

am i the only person on this website who feels it may be a good thing that there are more protected areas of coastline? I mean, why is everyone on this website so adimantly against the conservation of our planet? "Oh no, i can't fish my favorite spot anymore!" Boo friggin hoo, its the god **** ocean, its HUGE! Why is it so difficult for any of you to just suck it up, move on, and find new places to fish. With all that horrible stuff that we do to our planet, I'm glad some people are taking steps to help reduce our impact on at least some areas of our coast

Yep, the ocean is huge. So by the same logic, they could have created MPAs in more distant zones.

As it stands, the "average joe" now has to either upgrade his boat and/or spend more gas $ to get to more distant structure, or fish the parking lot of boats in the few close remaining areas.

I could go on with the problems I see associated with Arnold's personal legacy statute (he has signed in to law a bunch of other self-serving ones in the past year), but it is all moot at this juncture.

We all know the DFG is going to rubber stamp the recommendation.

Unless I am mistaken, the only alternatives are to either motivate enough legislators to repeal this crap, or find a plausible cause of action (due process comes to mind, considering how they F'd the public meetings) to eventually end up in that wacky appellate court up in San Fran.

Until then, get intimately familiar with your GPS & charts...and save your pennies for gas money.

[GeordyBass]

well said BSP and DockRat. And another thing to add which p!sses me off the most. OIL Companies are also stakeholders to the MLPA and are paying a lot so they can build up OIL RIGS.... Yes mlpa consists of businesses instead of conservationalism. "let the ninja f*sh*ng begin!.... Oil rigs + oil spills = extra points for the BRTF.... Woohooo!

[smokehound]

I saw a creepy ad on the bus that seemed to suggest peta and other sociopath groups are trying to pass a law to make meat eating illegal in california.


And no, I'm not joking.

[Fire Ball]

I saw a creepy ad on the bus that seemed to suggest peta and other sociopath groups are trying to pass a law to make meat eating illegal in california.


And no, I'm not joking.

That has to be a joke. :ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

PETA sucks.

[GeordyBass]

I saw a creepy ad on the bus that seemed to suggest peta and other sociopath groups are trying to pass a law to make meat eating illegal in california.


And no, I'm not joking.

A nice special finger would be waiting for them....lol that aint gonna work..... heck no! lol

[rusty6]

sorry i went on my rant, and im glad some people are pointing out things other than "now i can't fish in my favorite spot." the "economic drain" is a valid point, but by that same argument, almost anything environmentally friendly is an economic drain, if they weren't this planet would be saved. its the same reason why recycled plastics are barely used, if it was marketable and cost effective then itd be the way to go, but as it stands, nearly EVERYTHING environmentally friendly is not cost effective. i will admit, the mlpa closures were a huge cluster**** and i didn't say i'm not mad that i won't get to fish some of my favorite spots. The central coast is riddled with protected areas, so its not like im unfamiliar to this. I was just stating that i'm tired of hearing people moaning that their favorite fishing spots are in the closures and the same slippery slope argument of "they're trying to outlaw fishing." Maybe the closures were a bit extreme but its at least a step in the right direction...rather than pissing and moaning to this forum, piss and moan to the right people and get something done about it...just my two cents...and i am now a officially a pariah of the boards!!!!

[KID CREOLE]

sorry i went on my rant, and im glad some people are pointing out things other than "now i can't fish in my favorite spot." the "economic drain" is a valid point, but by that same argument, almost anything environmentally friendly is an economic drain, if they weren't this planet would be saved. its the same reason why recycled plastics are barely used, if it was marketable and cost effective then itd be the way to go, but as it stands, nearly EVERYTHING environmentally friendly is not cost effective. i will admit, the mlpa closures were a huge cluster**** and i didn't say i'm not mad that i won't get to fish some of my favorite spots. The central coast is riddled with protected areas, so its not like im unfamiliar to this. I was just stating that i'm tired of hearing people moaning that their favorite fishing spots are in the closures and the same slippery slope argument of "they're trying to outlaw fishing." Maybe the closures were a bit extreme but its at least a step in the right direction...rather than pissing and moaning to this forum, piss and moan to the right people and get something done about it...just my two cents...and i am now a officially a pariah of the boards!!!!

A step in the right direction, I couldn't have put it better myself! The problem with this statement is you clearly don't understand what direction this is heading!

The direction of the people behind the MLPAs is to stop fishing, the first step is to close off the most productive areas to fishing, forcing more fish into less productive waters, the next step will be that these fishing areas are over fished and they need to expand the closures.

Don't be fooled by these nut case liberal tree huggers, they are trying to end fishing!

Wouldn't it have been much easier to cut the limits and imposed more length restrictions?

Rusty, do yourself a favor and research how the Redfish was brought back from their low numbers!

I sure am glad fishing is something I do during the closed part of hunting season, as all the birds I hunt are experiencing increases in population and extended hunting seasons due to the growing populations without banning hunting!

[rusty6]

let me get my sled so i can have fun on that slippery slope

[rusty6]

either way, im just going to concede the argument because i have better things to do with my time than to debate this issue on a forum, on my way with one of my professors to go yell at the city of santa monica for its retarded legislation on the use of PLA...laters

[jerryG]

am i the only person on this website who feels it may be a good thing that there are more protected areas of coastline? I mean, why is everyone on this website so adimantly against the conservation of our planet? "Oh no, i can't fish my favorite spot anymore!" Boo friggin hoo, its the god **** ocean, its HUGE! Why is it so difficult for any of you to just suck it up, move on, and find new places to fish. With all that horrible stuff that we do to our planet, I'm glad some people are taking steps to help reduce our impact on at least some areas of our coast

I think I speak many of us here when I say we as Anglers represent the group of environmentalist with the most concern for improving our fisheries. We are interested in maintaining stocks with a very high level of sustainability but there is no science which supports the need for large closures to achieve this goal.

If the MPLA backers actually worked with the stakeholders groups and if we had fair representation in the decision making processes then I'm willing to bet they would have a lot more support among anglers. The MLPA had good intentions initially but once it became privately funded all the decision makers were being paid for results that favored closures . The corruption that has followed should be criminal. If you believe that this is about the environment and protection of our fisheries then you might not realize it yet but you have bought in to the propaganda.

If this initiative was designed to protect fisheries then why does it do nothing to improve water quality, or remove pollution? Why are large oil company executives who know nothing about fisheries being put in key decision making positions with in the MLPA process? Why are utility companies such as Enron getting involved?

The reason is there is nothing in the MLPA to restrict drilling for oil with in a reserve. Oh and hydraulic power from the waves and current has is what put Enron on board.

We also have the rich beach front home owners getting involved who are looking for any excuse to privatize the beach front as much as possible behind their homes.

If the process was truly based on science there would be no closures. The study conducted for the MLPA was done by 16 of the worlds leading scientists in fishery management and concluded that marine reserves were unnecessary. The results of the study emphasized the importance of regulating bag limits and open/ closed seasons. The study also determined that the fisheries in the waters off of California are among the healthiest in the world and not only are our fisheries sustainable but they have improved over the past decade due to the adoption of new ground fish regulations. We have learned from the closures in Central California that when large areas become closed to fishing the remaining areas left open crumble under the additional pressure. The load balance has been removed and the areas left open spots end up being whipped out by the added pressure.

So what we have learned is that MPLA is a corrupt process that has been scientifically proven to have little if any impact on our improving our fisheries. It stands to limit acess to public lands/ waters and place control of these areas in to the hands of rich property owners, and oil companies. Utilities and foreign aqua culture companies are also interested in getting a piece of the pie. It should come as no surprise why fisherman are furious over the MLPA..

JerryG

[Wingnut]

I think I speak many of us hear when I say we as Anglers we represent the group of environmentalist with the most concern for improving our fisheries. We are interested in maintaining stocks with a very high level of sustainability but there is no science which supports the need for large closures to achieve this goal.

If the MPLA backers actually worked with the stakeholders groups and if we had fair representation in the decision making processes then I'm willing to bet they would have a lot more support among anglers. The MLPA had good intentions initially but once it became privately funded all the decision makers were being paid for the result that favored closures . The corruption that has followed should be criminal. If you believe that this is about the environment and protection of our fisheries then you might not realize it yet but you have bought in to the propaganda.

If this initiative was designed to protect fisheries then why does it do nothing to improve water quality, or remove pollution? Why are large oil company executives who know nothing about fisheries being put in key decision making positions with in the MLPA process? Why are utility companies such as Enron getting involved including?

The reason is there is nothing in the MLPA to restrict drilling for oil with in a reserve. Oh and hydraulic power from the waves and current has put Enron on board.

We also have the rich beach front home owners getting involved who are looking for any excuse to finally privatize the beach behind their homes.

If the process was truly based on science there would be no closures. The study conducted for the MLPA by 16 of the worlds leading scientists in fishery management concluded that marine reserves were unnecessary and emphasized the importance of regulating bag limits and open/ closed seasons. The study also determined that the fisheries in the waters off of California are among the healthiest in the world and not only are our fisheries sustainable but they have improved over the past decade due to the adoption of new ground fish regulations. We have learned with closures in Central California that when large areas become closed to fishing the remaining areas left open crumble under the additional fishing pressure. The load balance has been removed and the open spots end being whipped out added pressure.

So what we have learned is that MPLA is a corrupt process that has been scientifically proven to have little if any impact on our improving our fisheries. It stands to take away acess to public lands/ waters and place it the hands of rich property owners, and oil companies. Utilities and foreign aqua culture companies are also interested in getting a piece of the pie. It should come as no surprise why fisherman are furious with MLPA..

JerryG

I know we've discussed this issue at length, but :Applause::Applause::Applause:thanks for sharing Jerry. :Cool:

If we're not careful... this could be just the beginning.

[jerryG]

I know we've discussed this issue at length, but :Applause::Applause::Applause:thanks for sharing Jerry. :Cool:

If we're not careful... this could be just the beginning.

Thanks Arthur!

[klocked]

Keep in mind that all of the maps will be submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission,
not just this Integrated Preferred Alternative(IPA). This map is just that... "an alternative" to
the other three.

That is my understanding of it, from what I've read elsewhere. So there is still the possibility
that the CFGC might choose group 2's map.

[Alexi]

am i the only person on this website who feels it may be a good thing that there are more protected areas of coastline? I mean, why is everyone on this website so adimantly against the conservation of our planet? "Oh no, i can't fish my favorite spot anymore!" Boo friggin hoo, its the god **** ocean, its HUGE! Why is it so difficult for any of you to just suck it up, move on, and find new places to fish. With all that horrible stuff that we do to our planet, I'm glad some people are taking steps to help reduce our impact on at least some areas of our coast

***Majority of fisherman take better care of the planet than Al Gore***

I think its more of a matter that non-fishermen, non-outdoors enthusiasts, are making these decisions for us. IF we had a say then I think it would be a very different reaction within our fishing community. But when we are being told where to fish by others who don't, it pisses us off.

Now I know alot of people who are pissed because an area is being closed. You know why?? It just might beecause of the fact that that area is the closest and only area they may be able to fish in. Who has the time to drive one hour to fish for 30 mins?? For alot of people it is more of being a pain in the *** to travel to a new spot now that they can't fish the most convenient and cost effective route anymore.

You will have ninja fisherman, like myself out there, fishing in waters that our constitution says we can fish in.

[Rakie]

Nothing wrong with protecting the environment ~ The problem is this can *EASILY* go way to far and make it nearly impossible to fish in our waters.

The real problem to most people isn't the fishing, it's the keeping of fish. I'm sure this would draw out ALL kinds of anger from people, but id like to see the limit of fish reduced to half, and the size of said fish being 'legal' raised. I know that sounds really drastic to some people, but that would positively influence the ocean in such a big way. You gotta think ~ That's another couple years a nice sized Halibut or Bass of all types could spawn.

Hell, id even rather see them make all fishing mandatory C&R in the ocean, because once they start closing off areas... I just see a landslide of 'red zones' on that map that are gonna show up. Guess i'm a pessimist when it comes to the government.




~Rakie.

[klymons]

This whole MLPA fiasco proves one thing--our DFG is powerless to defend our rights as fishermen and hunters. They are just a political tool of Sacramento--Arnie's Army, you might say. And we know that our beloved guv rolls with the radical enviros, the PETA pukes, and other so-called "green" high rollers. The MLPA is just the beginning of The Bambi Revolution, where enviros invoke flawed science to impose further closures and eventually ban all hunting and fishing. Forget the DFG, they'll just stand aside and let it all happen. I think all outdoorspeople--hunters and fishermen--need to start a counter-revolution, based on sound conservation practices, "real" science, and the right of all people to enjoy hunting and fishing. From what I understand, recreational fishermen were pretty much ignored all throughout the MLPA hearings. And why not? It's clear to me that the "fix" was already in, the right palms had been greased, and the outcome was never in doubt. And unless somebody steps up to the plate for us, California will have a new moniker: "The No State," as in no hunting & no fishing.

[DockRat]

id like to see the limit of fish reduced to half, and the size of said fish being 'legal' raised. I know that sounds really drastic to some people, but that would positively influence the ocean in such a big way.



Whooaa Rakie ---- You Been Drinking ? Sounds like you don't eat fish. Vegan ?
!st, You can't make a statement like that without SCIENCE.
2nd Proper fish management, limits, seasons HAVE BEEN PROVED to work for replenishing fish stocks.
3rd IMPROPER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT can be devastating to areas. Like too many seals eating 40 lbs of fish a day each.
4) Inshore gill net ban helped alot.



Hell, id even rather see them make all fishing mandatory C&R in the ocean, because once they start closing off areas... I just see a landslide of 'red zones' on that map that are gonna show up.

This is a 1999 law and now we now will have No Fishing Zones. We have to deal with it, fish around them.
There won't be more more Red Zones coming next year. It is not that bad (unless you live in Laguna or La Jolla) could have been worse.


DR