Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Channel Islands Sportfishing  CCA-California  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle  
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: MLPA PENDING CLOSURE MAPS - Download

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SLO Town, CA
    Posts
    950

    Default

    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!!!!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rusty6 View Post
    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!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SLO Town, CA
    Posts
    950

    Default

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

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SLO Town, CA
    Posts
    950

    Default

    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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    SGV
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rusty6 View Post
    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
    Last edited by jerryG; 11-26-2009 at 12:18 AM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerryG View Post
    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 thanks for sharing Jerry.

    If we're not careful... this could be just the beginning.
    Last edited by Wingnut; 11-25-2009 at 07:39 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    SGV
    Posts
    1,044

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wingnut View Post
    I know we've discussed this issue at length, but thanks for sharing Jerry.

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

  8. #28

    Default

    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Woodland Hills
    Posts
    47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rusty6 View Post
    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.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    105

    Default

    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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •