PDA

View Full Version : Is it true that the Farallon Islands are part of MLPA next year?



chromeslayer
08-25-2009, 02:29 AM
Someone told me, the MLPA is closing fishing permanently around the Farallons and other prime fishing areas. Why would it be permanent and is there a real need for the closure? If it was needed, I wouldn't mind the closure if the closed areas would be reopen after the fish population rebounded. They could even rotate closures on a annual basis, so we would still have places to fish. The MLPA is to extreme! PERMANENT CLOSURES!!!! >:( :( :o :-? >:( :( :o :-? :'(

chromeslayer
08-25-2009, 02:39 AM
Man it's true!
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/MLPA/pdfs/nccrsg-dprops/prop1_ec_sub6_071219.pdf
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/MLPA/northcentralhome.asp

Blktailhunter
08-25-2009, 03:23 AM
Kalifornia has been lost to the enviro-wackos. They know they can't end hunting and fish immediately so they are doing it incrementally. They stopped Mt. lion hunting, bear hunting with dogs, no doe hunts, trout planting in certain waters and the list goes on. We may never see ocean salmon fishing in Kalifornia again. The MLPA's will take the best rock cod fishing areas in the state off limits and there is nothing the sportsmen in Kali can do about it. The anti's have the funding and the ears of the politicians, sportsmen don't. By visiting the Monterey Bay Aquarium all you are doing is help fund Julie Packard's vision of stopping all fishing in Kalifornia and her bay. That why I have relocated to Washington.

bigeasy8240
08-25-2009, 03:49 AM
Seattle? ;)

tunaman
08-25-2009, 03:58 AM
You could still catch Cods out of those areas. Now if the rules say you can't catch Cods period, now that is going to far.

DanClark
08-25-2009, 04:36 AM
Yep, not only lost part of the farallon's but also pt. reyes, and the reefs off of montara north of HMB, more closures further north also. Just can't wait until they go to work on sf.bay, what a bummer.

Dan

Fish_R_Us
08-25-2009, 10:57 AM
Cordell Bank is next on the chopping block.

DanClark
08-25-2009, 11:17 AM
Cordell is outside three mile limit, not subject to mpa, cordell is closed by feds. to protect canary and yellow eye rockfish, may be open some day.

Dan

chromeslayer
08-25-2009, 11:55 AM
Is there any way of reversing the MPA or least not making the closures permanent?

hotdog
08-25-2009, 12:01 PM
Screw the MLPA's. Every fisherman with a boat should target the newly closed areas and force a showdown in the courts. I pay through the nose to live and fish here and now they're taking my tax dollars and using them to close off our public ocean. The saltwater regulations are enough of a hassle as it is, it's time for a revolt against these idiots.

żżż
08-25-2009, 12:26 PM
According to the proposal, there are two regions of the islands that are being considered (or maybe this passed already), and not the entire region.* The areas that are being considered fall into to region types; SMR (north island) and SMCA (south island).* Not sure what the deal is with the protected hard substrate.* I had to look up what these acronyms really meant, and found them on the DFG site (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/MLPA/defs.asp):

State Marine Reserve [36700(a) PRC]


A "state marine reserve," is a non-terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following:

protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas;
protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or
contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems.
Restrictions [36710(a) PRC]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.

Allowable uses [36710(a) PRC]: research, restoration and monitoring may be permitted by the managing agency. Educational activities and other forms of non-consumptive human use may be permitted by the designating entity or managing agency in a manner consistent with the protection of all marine resources.

State Marine Conservation Area [36700(c) PRC]

A "state marine conservation area," is a non-terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following:

protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas;
protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
protect or restore diverse marine gene pools;
contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems;
preserve outstanding or unique geological features; or
provide for sustainable living marine resource harvest.
Restrictions [36710(c) PRC]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or posses any specified living, geological or cultural marine resources for certain commercial, recreational, or a combination of commercial and recreational purposes. In general, any commercial and/or recreational uses that would compromise protection of the species of interest, natural community, habitat or geological features may be restricted by the designating entity or managing agency.

Allowable uses [36710(c) PRC]: research, education and recreational activities, and certain commercial and recreational harvest of marine resources may be permitted.

So.... parts of the area may be closed off.* I don't necessarily like it, but I also see that there's a lot of fishing pressure on the area.* I like this better than having the entire area restricted.* Plus, I want my kid's kids to have an opportunity to fish out there too.

:-/ :-/ :-/

hotdog
08-25-2009, 12:35 PM
One more thing, the estimated costs of patrolling these areas is between 35 & 55 MILLION PER YEAR. Never mind that with this much money we could build and staff a couple of hatcheries, say for sturgeon and coho salmon. They're confiscating this money to keep us from using OUR natural resources. If we don't stand up now, we deserve to lose the rest.

xxxxxx
08-25-2009, 01:08 PM
The poachers have a new place to slayem!!!! F&G can't patrol it anyway. Sad....very Sad.

Reel Fun

Midnight_Krawler
08-26-2009, 03:14 PM
Wecome to Nazifornia, where special interest groups rule!

Diesel2052
08-27-2009, 11:53 AM
This is not a proposal it is a done deal. If you were concerned you should have been attending the North Coast MLPA meetings that took place for over a year. Not that it would have mattered the process is paid for by Packard Foundation's Legacy Defense Fund and railroaded in to final vote by Arnold the Fish'n'hater. The process is so rife with false information conflicts of interest and political backrooming it is just disgusting. So now they are done with the Central Coast and the North Coast and they are currently working on the South Coast. After that they will start on closing sections of San Francisco Bay. If you want to fish the ocean you better have a good chart and an accurate GPS because there is no other way to know if you are fishing in a no fishing zone. You already know that there is an imaginary circle in the middle of Monteray bay that has been designated a no fishing zone right? Because under that circlle are robots being operated by the Monteray Bay Aquarium. Yep, it's Julia's bay alright and she wants the whole coast line. By the way she has the money and the political clout to do it too. She already has Arnold in her pocket along with Barbara and Diane.

Blktailhunter
08-27-2009, 12:26 PM
This is not a proposal it is a done deal. If you were concerned you should have been attending the North Coast MLPA meetings that took place for over a year. Not that it would have mattered the process is paid for by Packard Foundation's Legacy Defense Fund and railroaded in to final vote by Arnold the Fish'n'hater. The process is so rife with false information conflicts of interest and political backrooming it is just disgusting. So now they are done with the Central Coast and the North Coast and they are currently working on the South Coast. After that they will start on closing sections of San Francisco Bay. If you want to fish the ocean you better have a good chart and an accurate GPS because there is no other way to know if you are fishing in a no fishing zone.* You already know that there is an imaginary circle in the middle of Monteray bay that has been designated a no fishing zone right? Because under that circlle are robots being operated by the Monteray Bay Aquarium. Yep, it's Julia's bay alright and she wants the whole coast line.* By the way she has the money and the political clout to do it too. She already has Arnold in her pocket along with Barbara and Diane.
[smiley=iagree.gif]

The next time some of you visit the MBA please note that you are helping fund the demise of fishing in Kalifornia.*

hotdog
08-28-2009, 04:32 AM
Well, what's our best recourse against the enviro-wackadoodles??

1) Civil disobedience - fish the hell out of those newly closed waters and force a showdown in court.
Hey judge, why are we letting this group of nuts cost this state $Millions$ in revenues and how is this process even constitutional? When did the people of California get to vote on this B.S.?

2) Ballet initiative that over turns this idiacy - time to start gathering some signatures.

3)???

What's the quickest, cheapest route?

You're 100% right about us needing to be more involved earlier on but I thought this crap got tabled due to this state's budget fiasco. Here we go again, let's go even further into debt because of the "Left's" good intentions. Unfortunately, I have to pay for their good intentions.

Diesel2052
08-28-2009, 01:12 PM
I believe this was a ballet initiative in 1998 and it was voted in and then nothing was done about it due to lack of funds. So the Packard Foundation along with a couple of other environmental groups formed the Legacy Defence Fund and convinced the state to allow them to finance the implementation of the MLPA's. The Govenor agreed and even hired a Packard Foundation employee to be the DFG Director who has final say on the implementation. Okay stage is set and they railroad in the Central Coast MLPAs. Many people scream foul and the Coastside Fishing Club challenges the process in court and the judge throws out their argument and case closed. The North Coast is next and again the process although having more public meetings ultimatly gets railroaded in to law. I do not think the fisherman or others affected by these closures have the money or the ability to stick together and fund a ballot initiative to throw out the 1998 ballot initiative. We might be able to write a ballot initiative that says no MLPA's with out dedicated funds to monitor and patrol those areas I don't really think that would work either. I would like to teach the Govenor and the politicians a lesson that we won't stand for back room politics and conflicts of interest from our public officials but just look at what seems to be happening with the P Canal. That's going to be run right down our throats too. The P Canal will probably do more to destroy fishing on the West Coast so if an area is closed it won't matter anyway. We would probably be better served to have a ballot initiative that stops the P Canal rather than one that tries to eliminate the MLPAs.

Blktailhunter
08-28-2009, 03:16 PM
What is really sad is that people ( according to the number of views) are more worried about the price of a party boat than their fishing rights being taken away from them incrementally by Julie Packard and her allies. Pretty soon it won't matter what the price of hitching a ride on a party boat is because they will have been legislated out of existence. [smiley=soapbox5gm.gif]

Toxic_Waste
08-29-2009, 03:00 PM
They are calling the restricted areas "underwater parks" now, so rather than restoring a fish population so that it can support sustainable fishing, it sounds to me like the closures are indeed intended to be permanent. It's just like how when a species on the endangered list recovers to a healthy population, all hell breaks loose if a move is made to take that species off the list. You would think that removal from the ESL would be cause for celebration, but once something is locked up, those with a radical environmental agenda fight to keep it locked forever.

And our dry-land parks are going to be closed because there's no money to operate them, so the state goes ahead and opens miles and miles of NEW so-called "parks"! "Parks" my a--! Parks are supposed to be open for use by the public, not patrolled to keep people out!

The trend these days is for our tax dollars to go for the purpose of paying government officers to keep us out of public land/waters. And California doesn't even HAVE the money to pay for enforcement of the MLPAs. Maybe the Packard people will fund that too?

memebop
08-30-2009, 03:11 AM
I hate to be contrary, but I feel the ORIGINAL intent of these areas was to protect and promote spawning and replenishment of the fish that HAVE been severely depleted over the years. Fish from these areas are NOT restricted to stay there, so the impact could be a healthier fishery outside the areas as well.

Unfortunately, I don't think they know enough about the movement of these species to really convince me that politics isn't behind much of what was done.

At least we do know that lingcod migrate into shore areas part of the year from deep water. If we can find some rocky shore not out of limits, the lings could benefit and we might as well.

OK, let me have it! I know this is like saying the wolves are benefitial for the Rocky Mountains.

hotdog
08-30-2009, 07:45 AM
The point of debating an issue is to hear both sides and hopefully grasp the ripple effects/future impacts of each. There's no need for any name calling or for pulling out the "Nazi" card.

To your point, draconian fishing regs have already been implemented to stave off the distruction of certain rockfish species. This is the correct approach, change the fishing regs with the goal of conserving important species. We can then argue about when those regs can be relaxed because the goal has been achieved.

The thing that I fundamentally disagree with is that my home state goverment is confiscating my money in order to diminish our fishing access rights. They should be using my money for enhancement (like they do in other states), like taking those mothballed ships and creating some amazing reefs out on those big sand bars outside of the Gate. This would actually improve the rockfish stocks as well as providing more opportunity for fishermen. Yeah, lead paint, blah, blah, blah. Get er done!
The first instinct of our state gov is (always) to wack the sportsman instead of fixing the deeper problem. Fixing problems is harder than just knee-jerking every situation, it takes foresight and planning which is apparently illegal in Ca. state goverment. They would rather select political conclusions (follow the money baby) to our fishing issues and then spend millions of our dollars on studies that try to back up their initial conclusion. If you don't believe me, talk to a few enviromental scientists, like I have.

memebop
08-30-2009, 11:31 AM
The Mothball fleet is a perfect example of how our politicians have succeeded in dealing with those buckets of toxins that can impact our fragile bay ecosystem. They will never reach a solution and if they did the poor ships would be too delapidated to make it to the dumping grounds after 50+ years of waiting. They took on an easier approach to screw up fishing everywhere . . . then when everything is really gone the fishermen won't have anything to complain about. It will be too late.

tweedledomb
09-06-2009, 10:09 AM
Up where I like to hangout there are some exceptions like Abalone and Finfish. My question is what are they considering a FinFish?

hetchy
09-09-2009, 12:38 PM
Yea, enforcement is going to be a issue. The warden whom is the head of the wardens association even spoke at the Woodland DFG Commission meeting(where the closures were voted on and approved) in opposing the closures until they were given resources to enforce it. Just the same I'm not going to* put my boat at risk of being impounded or face huge fines for fishing in closed areas as a act of protest.They don't really have to enforce it all that much. Just bust a few boats and throw the book at them, the word will get around.
I was at that final hearing and it was hard to stomach, all these payed employees of Julies, payed off Surfriders Group, State Park employees in uniform(I think those two guys should have been fired for stating their personal opinion supporting the closures while in uniform, Government employees of Pt. Reyes N. Seashore. It really irked me seeing that most of the people for the clousures were on our(taxpayers)payroll. There were lots of good things said by fisherman in the two minute time limit but the outcome was a forgone conclusion especcially when the governator replaced a commisoner the day before the hearing with a new guy whom had his marching orders from Sacramento. Yea, southern Cal next year and then start closing the bays I believe is the game plan. I wouldn't spend a penny at MBA.

hotdog
09-09-2009, 01:34 PM
Just the same I'm not going toput my boat at risk of being impounded or face huge fines for fishing in closed areas as a act of protest.

There's the rub, at what point is it worthwhile to stand up to our over-bearing state government.
This whole process has been stacked against us fishermen from the outset. We fishermen, as a group, contribute far more to this economy than those who visit the aquarium but we aren't the protestor types so our voices don't get heard, that is, equal to our numbers. Also, our taxes pay the salaries of those knuckle-heads who showed up in uniform to tell us how great it is for us to give up our access rights.
Fishermen just want to enjoy our sport, live our lives and be left alone. I know I'm guilty of this but as I get older and see the all-out assaults on my favorite sport, I'm being pushed to go to meetings and get more involved, even though this is against my own nature. I feel like our side is bringing a knife to a gun fight regarding this issue and it's going to take a lot of effort to educate the public enough to get them on our side.

żżż
09-09-2009, 02:02 PM
Put your money where your mouth is. That's how you get their attention. Now you might feel better as an individual if you boycotted 'the system' by sitting out a fishing season (read no license, no tackle purchases, no chartered trips, no nothing!). One person won't make a ripple, but let's say if 75% of anglers in California said no, would that raise an eyebrow? Can you imagine the ripple effect that would have on commerce? IMO it's kinda like gas prices. We all hate that it's $3/gallon, but there we are lining up at the pump filling our SUV's. Yet some of us need to act on our conscience despite whether we think it will 'make a difference' or not.

So what is an angler to do other than stand at the state captial steps with my fishing rod in protest?

Sorry to get poltical, but it's at the heart of this thread...

Toxic_Waste
09-12-2009, 03:00 PM
Sadly, it's become a necessity for fishermen to include politics, as we are all finding out. I hate politics, but that's the driving force that affects us all nowadays.

Sardine
09-15-2009, 11:42 AM
I just checked the dfg site and someone asked when his fishing area was going to be closed. The dfg answer was that they didn't know but to speed up the process they could contact dfg. If I could find it again I'd copy it & include it here. Point is we all think dfg is on our side, they are not. They are mostly envioronmentalist whacko's that want to shut us down and keep us from fishing anywhere. Soon the whole Monterey Bay will be closed to all fishing as an example. Most of you guys support the dfg but you better wise up. They are your enemys, not you friends.

Toxic_Waste
09-15-2009, 12:15 PM
Well, I do tend to be a bit suspicious nowadays when asked 101 questions by the survey takers when I am fishing or just came in off the water. They always say that the information is vital in order to better serve our interests as fishermen, but how come the results tend to be just the opposite? ;)