DELETED

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Ed Wahl]

Seems like something major has managed to slip in under the radar. I don't really know much about fishing on the coast( I've got a guy working on that for me) so I have no real idea the affect it has on anglers. Maybe Anne, Carl, or Mr. Noodle Rod( :lol:) will weigh in. Tell Mrs. Uncool hi for me. Ed

[steelie]

This isn't new, this has been going on for the last three years. All of our fishing and hunting rights are coming to a close. The law that the governor signed for the protection of the condors and MPA are all of the work of the scientist that are bought by the Hewlitt family at Montery Aquarmian (spelling). All of this is funded by this family, PETA, The United States S.P.C.A., ACLU and all the liberal California political people. Not only you should contact fishing organizations, but also hunting too. These people are using every trick in the book. Even closing areas off from gear fisherman, this is a way to close that water shed off from everyone. This is no B.S., the activist of this state are shutting down all outdoor activities that envolve any one that comes to touching their wild animals. They don't care about you and they don't know a thing about conservation. All they know is that we are all killers of their animal.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I don't think this is going to work out for the people who want to shut down fishing and hunting in the USA.

Dick Chaney and Charlton Heston can be pretty tough to deal with when they get mad.

I've been at the Safari Club functions and I wouldn't want to get those guys stirred up either.

If those people who want to shut off fishing and hunting showed up in the mid-west they would be toast. Have they seen the opening day of Pheasant season in South Dakota?

[steelie]

You are right for right now that the people of the USA will not put up with this, but it is happening in New England states now. These activists have real big money with them. If the state of California is able to shut down hunting and fishing then many other states will follow. There is alot of political clout here and other states watch and are moved by what happens in this state.

[Motofish]

Beach's that where hot for Striper's this past season are now CLOSED. I believe that Wadel and Scott Creek beaches around the Santa Cruz area are now shut down. Victor

[Ed Wahl]

Steelie I think your off on your own tangent here. These are egghead scientists who probably never even consider the what the unwashed masses might want. I really don't think it's a Peta, SPCA, or even an ACLU or Evil Liberal issue. I think Mr. Uncool has pretty much spelled out what it would take to make our side heard, are you willing to do it? Ed

[Darian]

Hmmmm,..... Steelie is correct. This is nothing new having been mentioned a number of times on Blanton's BB. It has serious impact on recreational and commercial fisheries but, IMHO, is not a conspiracy. After reading the info on the link, the original post appears to be a bit overly emotional and jumps to a bunch of conclusions about what will happen. The document displayed is produced by DFG and the study groups appear to be advised by DFG staff.

We can tell by the areas proposed for designation that the current use could be changed to include or exclude fishing. Some fisheries are clarified. However, that's about all I could see in this highly summarized document.... :? :? Some of the info is not readily understood. For example, it's not clear whether all of Drakes Estero will be closed. Further, the proposed change for the Russian River is a "box" around the mouth of the river. How big :?: How far up river does it extend :?: :?: Is it a rectangle or square box :?: :?: Maybe the impacts are less than we imagine.

It is time to get all of the "stakeholder" organizations in gear but we should try to find out more about what the proposals actually are and what they mean for us. It's gonna be a lot more effective if we know what we're talking about and leave the unnecessary accusations and emotions out. 8) 8) 8)

[steelie]

Darian, you are right to a point. I like to gear fish as much as fly fish. Read Western Outdoors News, they have the ocean closures. DFG is also being advised by outside biologist. You have to realize that they don't have the funds to do the studies them selfs. The state skims money the DFG license, stamps and tags fees that we pay.

[lee s.]

Sorry about the "cut & paste" of the post I sent to our club conservation committee, but it seemed easier and Cindy's stuff is what seems applicable anyway. Maybe it is time for ALL local clubs to dip into "their" poop a bit. :wink:
....lee s.

[lee s.]

Oops! Here it is. :oops:

http://www.kiene.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=7996

Everybody this is BIG
I looked around the site here but haven't seen anything about MPAs (Marine Protected Areas.) I suggest everybody check their DFG regs. What happened, with fishermen's approval or not, to the Central Coast, is about to happen to the North Coast. This thing sounded great, as we all want to protect the resource we love and depend on for recreation, relaxation, and sanity. Oddly, the process of protecting the thing WE love has been hijacked by protectionists and scientists (no disrespect intended) who don't understand or care about our fishing priveleges. Our commitment to conservation, sportsmanship, and careful stewardship means NOTHING to many of these people. Unless you all get your advocacy groups (TU, American Sportfishing Association, The Nature Conservancy- which, by the way, doesn't yet have a position on this issue- etc) to become "stakeholders" in this process, AND make your position, as a member (and, therefore, cash contributor) clear, you will wake up to find many north coast beaches and estuaries, among them the estuary of the Russian River CLOSED TO ALL FISHING!!! (yes, even fly fishing, even catch and release). These MPAs have been defined to include ESTUARIES AND BEACHES. As a responsible sportsman, I have always been content to abide by the laws and DFG regulations, and believed that management of sport fisheries fell solely within the purview of our democratically elected government. GUESS WHAT? With respect to these MPAs, DFG is not in control. The Blue Ribbon Panel (appointed by Da Guvuhnater) and a Scientific Advisory panel (composed of MANY privately funded PROTECTIONIST/RESEARCH organizations) are in control. They are in the process of public review. Once this process is closed, IT'S ALL OVER!. They are accepting input from groups they have identified as "stakeholder" groups. That means they only recognize ORGANIZED bodies that profess an interest in the issue. SO, you need to contact any organizations you are in, or maybe join some, and make your wishes known. Use email! Inundate the people who control the future of your coastal flyfishing with your demand to be considered. There are also Public Forum dates coming up. Go to the DFG website to see dates, places, and times. I think a bunch of us should show up and raise our concerns. Below is the DFG website URL. Among other things, it lists the different proposals being considered. According to an inadvertent but highly placed source, plan JA is the winner so far. The critical definition is "Marine Reserve", which means NO TAKE. "Take" is defined as pursuit or attempt to capture, solely at the whim, or discretion, of ONE person who's writing this proposed regulation. That means NO FISHING IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER ESTUARY. NO FISHING AT POINT REYES. Get it? There are three levels of protection: Conservation Area, Protected Area, and Reserve. The difference in the management of these three is profound. A "Reserve" means NO FISHING, PERIOD. Check it out: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/ja_description_071025_rev.pdf

And......

Hello Members:

Recently, there was a possibility that Pescadero Creek would be closed to all
fishing due to the implementation of the Marine Protection Act on that part of
the California Coast. There were a few meetings and many anglers spoke up
protesting the total closure of the already very limited catch and release
fishing currently allowed. I have found out that the current draft proposals
have now taken out that closure rule to leave the fishing regulations as is. I
did write a letter on behalf of GWWF arguing against the closure for various
reasons and it was good to find out that the Stakeholder workgroups listened to
the common sense of the anglers.

Cindy Charles
Conservation Chair


Just maybe we should be getting REAL busy?
.....lee s.

[Darian]

Lee,.... The summarized document I was referring to is the DFG, pdf file in the link. IMHO, there's not enough info displayed to have a complete understanding of the proposals and, as a result, groups would be unable to make effective comment if they don't dig deeper for all of the available info. 8) 8)

Even tho newsletters or newspapers offer decent reporting, the actual proposals probably don't appear in the Fish Sniffer. Not sure I'd rely on that source when there is a better one (....unless that source is being kept from us). I'm advocating being informed and eliminating barbs aimed at the people groups will need (DFG staff or any others) to support their positions across... 8) 8)

Actually, I'm surprised that input will only be entertained from "....stakeholder...." groups. Why would the study group limit input in that fashion :?: :?: Surely, some interested individual(s) would have some important information/observations to add to the process..... :? :?

[lee s.]

Unless you can show me a "temporary"tax that has been recinded or a "temporary" closure (such as the "5 yr" closure on Lagunitas Creek in the 80"s?) that has been re-opened, I, for only one, still feel that the very best way is to NOT give any toeholds......no matter how small or seemingly innocent.
I am all for enviriomental restoration efforts by effectually eliminating enviriomental degradation by pollution and other effectual measures. Ineffectual BS measures such as closures and non-useage restore nothing. Ineffectual measures such as those merely "hide" the on-going effects of NOT properly addressing the issues. IMHO only.
.....lee s.

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... Not sure I understand where you're going here.... :? :? I'm advocating being prepared, not waiting or jumping to conclusions about this.... Kinda sounds like we don't really disagree overall but vary in approach. I certainly don't want MPA closures in the coastal areas where I fish, either.

However, at some point, we have to examine whether establishing MPA's will benefit the resource designated for protection. It seems to me that without looking into the materials/science behind the proposals, we're jumping to conclusions without having background knowledge. Isn't that what we often accuse those who make these types of decisions of doing????

Maybe we should check our motives in protesting this.... If, thru reading the background materials to these proposals, we find that they are the best effort to protect the resource, should we protest adoption of an MPA for that resource or follow a self interest in order to keep fishing??? If the latter, aren't we no better than the commercial fisherman who we (as a recreational fishing community) have frequently condemned for their self interest????

Most of the environmental impacts that must be addressed thru proposals such as these are not reversible. This is due to development, special interests and overpopulation. None of which is easily opposed. If there's some agenda to make these things happen, we have to have our ducks in a row to be successful in opposing or changing them.

Lee, I'm not directing this stuff at you.... I'd like to cause some thinking about the proposals and our motives. 8) 8)

[lee s.]

Well said. I agree.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Darian]

Altho I can understand the urgency in your request for action, I don't share your views of the great overall conspiracy to deprive us our rights to fish.... Anyone who has read my posts about water policy and/or political concerns knows that I'm very cynical. However, in this case, I don't believe that there is an overall agenda to do this.... 8)

What I do believe is that this process is based on passage of State Legislation over a year ago. This process involves a "Blue Ribbon Committee advised by an Science Advisory Panel drawn from a number of different backgrounds (academia, government and private enterprise) and all highly educated, if we can believe what is shown in the documentation (....and I see no reason we can't believe it).

Funding for the process is, apparently, controlled thru DFG (regardless of the source), the stated goals and objectives are consistent with conserving resources and the organizational structure appears to be appropriately placed. 8) 8) "....Stakeholders...." are summarized here (by me) as those receiving benefit from the resource.

There are two classes of persons or groups that input is accepted from; 1) "stakeholders" and 2) "interested parties". Interested parties include anyone having interest in the outcome or process. 8) There're appears to be a bunch of input received from interested parties and recorded by the study group. Haven't read any yet but I assume it's both pro & con.

Since I don't believe that there is a hidden agenda, here, I think that we must each assess whether establishing MPA's is a good thing or bad for the resource. Also, we need to examine our own motives in this. Is it to benefit the resource or to preserve our own fishing privileges.... I, for one, do not accept that "catch & release" is an effective alternative in this case. The basis for that statement is that fly fisherman make up a relatively small number of those fishing in the ocean/surf. There're bait, clam, invertebrates (abalone, Urchin's, etc.), commercial and recreational fisherman, as well. Many of those keep 100% of their catch. Commercial fisherman injure a lot of the incidental catch in releasing them. Most do not survive. All poachers keep their catch. As we all know, there're not enough Warden's to patrol the entire coastline. Areas closed to fishing are more easily patrolled. In spite of all of this, I don't want closures where I fish BUT....

A point of interest is that the list of those providing input appear to be from the SoCal area, in the main. :? Don't know whether that means that we, in NorCal, are not interested or that we're uninformed :? :? Forgive me in advance if I missed something here but I haven't seen anything from the Striped Bass groups in the lists of those providing input....

At any rate, this appears to be where we can still do something. The process isn't closed, yet (as has been pointed out), and input about the proposals is still being received. if you're a person who would like to make a difference, here's your chance. :) :) Read the materials thru the links provided, make a choice and take what ever action you can.... :) :) :)

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Darian]

I don't want to belabor this subject any longer. So, I'm going to make a few summarized points taken from materials in the MLPA documentation:

- The initiative for this project actually passed in 1999 (Chapter 1015, Stats. 1999). Everything that has transpired in this project has occurred since that time (nothing new here....).

- Funding is from a State, Federal and private partnership. The private partners are two non-profit, philanthropic organizations. First, the Legacy Foundation (Packard family) and the Moore Foundation. No evidence of, "...., PETA, The United States S.P.C.A., ACLU and all the liberal California political people."

- Approved sources of funding are State General Operating Fund and General Obligation Bond funds (primary), a proposed lodging tax for establishments in the coastal area, money from fines and settlements arising from harmful acts committed in marine environments, shares of permit fees for activities and/or development that impact ocean environment, money received from decommissioning oil rigs and money from federal and private matching funds.

- I've read a sampling of the public comments and found that there are, just as I supposed, pro & con positions throughout. Many individuals and organizations provided written comments.

In order to provide some indication that there is more at stake here than whether we are allowed to fish or not, one of the letters received was from a person who mentioned that Kelp harvesting (....thru a process called mowing) was having a negative impact on fish who use the canopy for survival. Yet another pointed out that Sea Urchins are a very prolific species that have a negative impact on all species in their immediate area (citing areas barren of invertebrate and shellfish life where Urchins are not controlled). In this instance a closure may have a negative outcome without monitoring. Lest we forget, many individuals and businesses in that area will be negatively impacted upon enactment, as well.

There's some discussion from our SoCal brethren on Gary Bulla's BB about the impact on their area with much the same result. Lotsa emotional pro & con. The rational discussion of this topic is necessary. Again, I urge all to read up on this stuff and search your conscience take whatever action you deem appropriate.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[DELETED]

DELETED

[steelie]

Darin do you thing the Packard and Moore Foundations support the other foundations? They have the money. What Mr. Cool is getting at is that alot of these new Regs and laws have clauses written in that it can not be changed. In one of the other forum a person replied that it was not worth the time to fish the estuary at Russian River because of sea lions and harbour seals. The marine protection act has been in affect for something like 25 plus years. The mountain lion protection act had been in affect for some thing like 20 years. There is no balance in water resourses and marine mamals. Millions of dollars have been paid out from the state to victims of mountain lion attacks. The point is that there are people who think they know how to manage our wildlife, but really don't. The balance of nature is out of balance. There are many tools to use to keep things in balance. This state has one of the highest human population, yet employs the smallest fish and game personal in the nation.

[Darian]

Steelie,.... I'm fairly certain I understand what you and Mr. Uncool are advocating.... However, the real issue here is whether marine fisheries are really in as bad shape as has been identified and reported. If you believe that there is a very high probability that it is true, the choice is whether to continue to fish/use until the resource is damaged beyond recovery or close those areas for recovery (regardless of how long that takes).

By adding the informational posts about these proposals, I was trying to provide enough information to enable any person to make their own choice. You and Mr. Uncool have, apparently made your choice.... I respect that choice and am not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Peace :D :D :D