California Fishing Closures

[Roger]

Just read about this and knowing a bunch of ya'll out there was wondering how will this effect the recreational fishing out there.

http://dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/scmpas121510.pdf

[Norcal Pescador]

It makes it harder with a bunch of good areas closed.  Even good surf fishing spots are closed now.  I can't say what I'm tempted to because this is a clean forum.     More trips to Mexican waters I guess. Don't get me wrong, I like good fishing and I believe reasonable limits are good for the fisheries.

How is the gulf coast shaping up, Roger?

Rob

[Roger]

We've got an area about 100 NM east of Galveston called the "Flower Gardens". It's an area of live coral where there are already many fishing restrictions. A lot of people go out there to dive and it really is beautiful to see the pic's and films of the fish and different colored coral. It's a great place for winter time wahoo, which is a surface bite and bottom fishin is already restricted. Now Lubchenko is wanting to expand it from 35 sq mi to 440 sq mi and shut down everything.

I already see where these Ca. restrictions are gonna wind up in court but there's a lot of rednecks and coonsass's  down here that 'll be up in arms over this. so look out Lubchenko and NOAA.

This is a comment from a person who attended a Dec. 9 meeting......

Well, thanks for everyone showing up........................or not

Here is what we are looking at

Expansion of the FGBNMS from 35 sq miles to 400 sq. miles
no anchor zones anywhere in the expansion
no spearfishing " " "
no bottom fishing " " "
stiff penalties for effluent dishcharge, deck wash, head, sink water, etc
penalties for touching or harassing whale sharks and manta rays

their obvious goal is to turn the whole 440sq. mi area into a Marine Protected Area , an MPA will basically ban anyone from removing fish by any means and may even limit entry all together. You can thank the TX Sierra club for this one.

This will be up for comment on again in Jan. then it goes to env. studies, and make take place as soon as 2013.

[Phinaddict]

Ok... you asked, here goes...


As individuals, sport fishermen, in general, have remained pretty silent; content to let a few voices speak for them at MLPA meetings. And those few have done a good job at making our point. In addition, the biggest voices, the political action groups like the RFA, United Anglers oppose this and they need our support, now. 
In California, the sport fisherman has been given the shaft.
Central Valley water rights, (agribiz conglomerates), water agencies that sell Sacramento River water, commercial fishing and California Indian Tribal groups all have louder voices than we do. Not even going to mention the private funding behind the MLPA...

The MLPA is a means to protect our resources. Its "blue ribbon panel" claimed they wanted "an open, transparent and inclusive" and "science-based" process... it wasn't.
A quick review of the appointed panel members' bios reveal few science based backgrounds, (and apparently only 1 fisherman). They are, for the most part, politicos or big business insiders, (such as the appointed president of the Western States Petroleum Association and another who is the CEO of a waterfront and marina development corporation).

Here is the real rub. The MLPA was implemented to "Help sustain, conserve and protect marine life populations" via the privatization of ocean conservation groups.  To date, the brunt of this "conservation effort" has been carried by fishermen who have had miles of coastal closures. Not so much about coastal wetlands restoration, water pollution, oil drilling or water rights...did I mention who was on the board?
In addition, I hate to say it, but the money behind this is solidly anti- fishing.

The real problems are not being addressed. Much of the real science is not being used. And best of all, how does California plan to enforce this? Geez, the DFG wardens are the most overworked law enforcement group in the land... and the most dedicated.

Im not a scientist, but it does not take much digging in this MLPA muck to find out it is not what it is supposed to be.

As a fisherman, I want to keep the right to fish. As a father, I want to leave a resource for my children. I support and encourage sound, resource management.  Im not normally a political loudmouth, but I do think this whole MLPA thing REALLY stinks.

And it is only a matter of time before this type of "resource management" comes to your state.

> Getting of my soapbox and going to bed.
Gene

[wallacewt]

same in oz. only the names are changed.a couple of years ago we were asked to fill in forms so that we could all help preserve the fish and enviro;record our catch,species,etc;etc.so a lot of us did!WRONG!!!!THEY NOW KNEW WHERE WE CATCHING FISH.they then CLOSED IT OFF to protect the fish and the enviro;unless fishermen unite,which they wont do,nothing will change.i just fish,screw em.