THE marine life protection act.......fish and game code 2850

Discussion in 'Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA)' started by MikeyLikesIt, Mar 15, 2009.

Share This Page

  1. MikeyLikesIt
    Offline

    sorry, its kinda long. READ IT. my purpose in posting this is NOT for a bitch and moan session about how screwed we are.......I want us to get educated on what the intention of the MLPA really is.....and then we can form up a more informed strategy on how to MINIMIZE THE CLOSURES



    the owners of BD are working with others to determine the best strategy to leverage the scale of the many thousands of BD'ers into something tangible.....stay tuned.



    BTW, I will be keeping a short leash on this one.....if you want to post something here.....please make it constructive. (or your post will likely disappear). There are plenty of other threads to whine. Thank you.




    FISH AND GAME CODE
    SECTION 2850-2863



    2850. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Marine
    Life Protection Act.



    2851. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
    (a) California's marine protected areas (MPAs) were established on
    a piecemeal basis rather than according to a coherent plan and sound
    scientific guidelines. Many of these MPAs lack clearly defined
    purposes, effective management measures and enforcement. As a
    result, the array of MPAs creates the illusion of protection while
    falling far short of its potential to protect and conserve living
    marine life and habitat.
    (b) California's extraordinary marine biological diversity is a
    vital asset to the state and nation. The diversity of species and
    ecosystems found in the state's ocean waters is important to public
    health and well-being, ecological health, and ocean-dependent
    industry.
    (c) Coastal development, water pollution, and other human
    activities threaten the health of marine habitat and the biological
    diversity found in California's ocean waters. New technologies and
    demands have encouraged the expansion of fishing and other activities
    to formerly inaccessible marine areas that once recharged nearby
    fisheries. As a result, ecosystems throughout the state's ocean
    waters are being altered, often at a rapid rate.
    (d) Fish and other sea life are a sustainable resource, and
    fishing is an important community asset. MPAs and sound fishery
    management are complementary components of a comprehensive effort to
    sustain marine habitats and fisheries.
    (e) Understanding of the impacts of human activities and the
    processes required to sustain the abundance and diversity of marine
    life is limited. The designation of certain areas as sea life
    reserves can help expand our knowledge by providing baseline
    information and improving our understanding of ecosystems where
    minimal disturbance occurs.
    (f) Marine life reserves are an essential element of an MPA system
    because they protect habitat and ecosystems, conserve biological
    diversity, provide a sanctuary for fish and other sea life, enhance
    recreational and educational opportunities, provide a reference point
    against which scientists can measure changes elsewhere in the marine
    environment, and may help rebuild depleted fisheries.
    (g) Despite the demonstrated value of marine life reserves, only
    14 of the 220,000 square miles of combined state and federal ocean
    water off California, or six-thousandths of 1 percent, are set aside
    as genuine no take areas.
    (h) For all of the above reasons, it is necessary to modify the
    existing collection of MPAs to ensure that they are designed and
    managed according to clear, conservation-based goals and guidelines
    that take full advantage of the multiple benefits that can be derived
    from the establishment of marine life reserves.



    2852. The following definitions govern the construction of this
    chapter:
    (a) "Adaptive management," with regard to marine protected areas,
    means a management policy that seeks to improve management of
    biological resources, particularly in areas of scientific
    uncertainty, by viewing program actions as tools for learning.
    Actions shall be designed so that, even if they fail, they will
    provide useful information for future actions, and monitoring and
    evaluation shall be emphasized so that the interaction of different
    elements within marine systems may be better understood.
    (b) "Biogeographical regions" refers to the following oceanic or
    near shore areas, seaward from the mean high tide line or the mouth
    of coastal rivers, with distinctive biological characteristics,
    unless the master plan team establishes an alternative set of
    boundaries:
    (1) The area extending south from Point Conception.
    (2) The area between Point Conception and Point Arena.
    (3) The area extending north from Point Arena.
    (c) "Marine protected area" (MPA) means a named, discrete
    geographic marine or estuarine area seaward of the mean high tide
    line or the mouth of a coastal river, including any area of
    intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and
    associated flora and fauna that has been designated by law,
    administrative action, or voter initiative to protect or conserve
    marine life and habitat. An MPA includes marine life reserves and
    other areas that allow for specified commercial and recreational
    activities, including fishing for certain species but not others,
    fishing with certain practices but not others, and kelp harvesting,
    provided that these activities are consistent with the objectives of
    the area and the goals and guidelines of this chapter. MPAs are
    primarily intended to protect or conserve marine life and habitat,
    and are therefore a subset of marine managed areas (MMAs), which are
    broader groups of named, discrete geographic areas along the coast
    that protect, conserve, or otherwise manage a variety of resources
    and uses, including living marine resources, cultural and historical
    resources, and recreational opportunities.
    (d) "Marine life reserve," for the purposes of this chapter, means
    a marine protected area in which all extractive activities,
    including the taking of marine species, and, at the discretion of the
    commission and within the authority of the commission, other
    activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area,
    are prohibited. 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.



    2853. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there is a need
    to reexamine and redesign California's MPA system to increase its
    coherence and its effectiveness at protecting the state's marine
    life, habitat, and ecosystems.
    (b) To improve the design and management of that system, the
    commission, pursuant to Section 2859, shall adopt a Marine Life
    Protection Program, which shall have all of the following goals:
    (1) To protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life,
    and the structure, function, and integrity of marine ecosystems.
    (2) To help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life
    populations, including those of economic value, and rebuild those
    that are depleted.
    (3) To improve recreational, educational, and study opportunities
    provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human
    disturbance, and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with
    protecting biodiversity.
    (4) To protect marine natural heritage, including protection of
    representative and unique marine life habitats in California waters
    for their intrinsic value.
    (5) To ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined
    objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement,
    and are based on sound scientific guidelines.
    (6) To ensure that the state's MPAs are designed and managed, to
    the extent possible, as a network.
    (c) The program may include areas with various levels of
    protection, and shall include all of the following elements:
    (1) An improved marine life reserve component consistent with the
    guidelines in subdivision (c) of Section 2857.
    (2) Specific identified objectives, and management and enforcement
    measures, for all MPAs in the system.
    (3) Provisions for monitoring, research, and evaluation at
    selected sites to facilitate adaptive management of MPAs and ensure
    that the system meets the goals stated in this chapter.
    (4) Provisions for educating the public about MPAs, and for
    administering and enforcing MPAs in a manner that encourages public
    participation.
    (5) A process for the establishment, modification, or abolishment
    of existing MPAs or new MPAs established pursuant to this program,
    that involves interested parties, consistent with paragraph (7) of
    subdivision (b) of Section 7050, and that facilitates the designation
    of MPAs consistent with the master plan adopted pursuant to Section
    2855.



    2854. The workgroup shall, after appropriate consultation with
    members of the public, determine future actions for implementing the
    recommendations of its final report.



    2855. (a) The commission shall adopt a master plan that guides the
    adoption and implementation of the Marine Life Protection Program
    adopted pursuant to Section 2853 and decisions regarding the siting
    of new MPAs and major modifications of existing MPAs. The plan shall
    be based on the best readily available science.
    (b) (1) The department shall prepare, or by contract shall cause
    to be prepared, a master plan in accordance with this subdivision.
    In order to take full advantage of scientific expertise on MPAs, the
    department shall convene a master plan team to advise and assist in
    the preparation of the master plan, or hire a contractor with
    relevant expertise to assist in convening such a team.
    (2) The team members convened pursuant to this subdivision shall
    have expertise in marine life protection and shall be knowledgeable
    about the use of protected areas as a marine ecosystem management
    tool. The members shall also be familiar with underwater ecosystems
    found in California waters, with the biology and habitat requirements
    of major species groups in the state's marine waters, and with water
    quality and related issues.
    (3) The team shall be composed of the following individuals:
    (A) Staff from the department, the Department of Parks and
    Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board, to be
    designated by each of those departments.
    (B) Five to seven members who shall be scientists, one of whom may
    have expertise in the economics and culture of California coastal
    communities.
    (C) One member, appointed from a list prepared by Sea Grant marine
    advisers, who shall have direct expertise with ocean habitat and sea
    life in California marine waters.
    (4) The master plan shall be prepared with the advice, assistance,
    and involvement of participants in the various fisheries and their
    representatives, marine conservationists, marine scientists, and
    other interested persons. In preparing the master plan, the
    department shall confer, to the extent feasible, with the commission,
    the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the National Marine
    Fisheries Service, the United States Navy, the United States
    Geological Survey's national biological survey, staff from national
    marine sanctuaries off California, Sea Grant researchers, marine
    advisers, and national parks personnel.
    (5) The department may engage other experts to contribute to the
    master plan, including scientists, geographic information system
    (GIS) experts, and commercial and recreational fishermen, divers, and
    other individuals knowledgeable about the state's underwater
    ecosystems, the history of fishing effort or MPA management, or other
    relevant subjects.
    (c) The department and team, in carrying out this chapter, shall
    take into account relevant information from local communities, and
    shall solicit comments and advice for the master plan from interested
    parties on issues including, but not necessarily limited to, each of
    the following:
    (1) Practical information on the marine environment and the
    relevant history of fishing and other resources use, areas where
    fishing is currently prohibited, and water pollution in the state's
    coastal waters.
    (2) Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of various
    alternatives.
    (3) Design of monitoring and evaluation activities.
    (4) Methods to encourage public participation in the stewardship
    of the state's MPAs.


    2856. (a) (1) The department and team shall use the best readily
    available scientific information in preparing the master plan adopted
    pursuant to Section 2855, and shall organize the location-specific
    contents, where feasible, by biogeographical region. In preparing
    the plan, the department and team shall use and build upon the
    findings of the Sea Grant survey of protected areas in California
    waters, which is entitled "California's Marine Protected Areas," the
    report of the State Interagency Marine Managed Areas Workgroup, the
    Department of Parks and Recreation's planning information and
    documents regarding existing and potential underwater parks and
    reserves, maps and other information from the department's marine
    nearshore ecosystem mapping project, and other relevant planning and
    scientific materials.
    (2) The master plan shall include all of the following components:

    (A) Recommendations for the extent and types of habitat that
    should be represented in the MPA system and in marine life reserves.
    Habitat types described on maps shall include, to the extent
    possible using existing information, rocky reefs, intertidal zones,
    sandy or soft ocean bottoms, underwater pinnacles, sea mounts, kelp
    forests, submarine canyons, and seagrass beds.
    (B) An identification of select species or groups of species
    likely to benefit from MPAs, and the extent of their marine habitat,
    with special attention to marine breeding and spawning grounds, and
    available information on oceanographic features, such as current
    patterns, upwelling zones, and other factors that significantly
    affect the distribution of those fish or shellfish and their larvae.

    (C) Recommendations to augment or modify the guidelines in
    subdivision (c) of Section 2857, if necessary to ensure that the
    guidelines reflect the most up-to-date science, including, for
    example, recommendations regarding the minimum size of individual
    marine life reserves needed to accomplish the various goals set forth
    in Section 2853.
    (D) Recommended alternative networks of MPAs, including marine
    life reserves in each biogeographical region that are capable of
    achieving the goals in Section 2853 and designed according to the
    guidelines in subdivision (c) of Section 2857.
    (E) A simplified classification system, which shall be consistent
    with the goals of Section 2853 and the guidelines in subdivision (c)
    of Section 2857, and which may include protections for specific
    habitats or species, if no system that meets these specifications has
    already been developed.
    (F) Recommendations for a preferred siting alternative for a
    network of MPAs that is consistent with the goals in Section 2853 and
    the guidelines in subdivision (c) of Section 2857.
    (G) An analysis of the state's current MPAs, based on the
    preferred siting alternative, and recommendations as to whether any
    specific MPAs should be consolidated, expanded, abolished,
    reclassified, or managed differently so that, taken as a group, the
    MPAs best achieve the goals of Section 2853 and conform to the
    guidelines in subdivision (c) of Section 2857.
    (H) Recommendations for monitoring, research, and evaluation in
    selected areas of the preferred alternative, including existing and
    long-established MPAs, to assist in adaptive management of the MPA
    network, taking into account existing and planned research and
    evaluation efforts.
    (I) Recommendations for management and enforcement measures for
    the preferred alternative that apply systemwide or to specific types
    of sites and that would achieve the goals of this chapter.
    (J) Recommendations for improving the effectiveness of enforcement
    practices, including, to the extent practicable, the increased use
    of advanced technology surveillance systems.
    (K) Recommendations for funding sources to ensure all MPA
    management activities are carried out and the Marine Life Protection
    Program is implemented.
    (b) The team shall, as necessary, identify and define additional
    appropriate components of the master plan as soon as possible after
    enactment of this section.



    2857. (a) On or before July 1, 2001, the department shall convene,
    in each biogeographical region and to the extent practicable near
    major working harbors, siting workshops, composed of interested
    parties, to review the alternatives for MPA networks and to provide
    advice on a preferred siting alternative. The department and team
    shall develop a preferred siting alternative that incorporates
    information and views provided by people who live in the area and
    other interested parties, including economic information, to the
    extent possible while maintaining consistency with the goals of
    Section 2853 and guidelines in subdivision (c) of this section.
    (b) The preferred alternative may include MPAs that will achieve
    either or both of the following objectives:
    (1) Protection of habitat by prohibiting potentially damaging
    fishing practices or other activities that upset the natural
    ecological functions of the area.
    (2) Enhancement of a particular species or group of species, by
    prohibiting or restricting fishing for that species or group within
    the MPA boundary.
    (c) The preferred siting alternative shall include MPA networks
    with an improved marine life reserve component, and shall be designed
    according to each of the following guidelines:
    (1) Each MPA shall have identified goals and objectives.
    Individual MPAs may serve varied primary purposes while collectively
    achieving the overall goals and guidelines of this chapter.
    (2) Marine life reserves in each bioregion shall encompass a
    representative variety of marine habitat types and communities,
    across a range of depths and environmental conditions.
    (3) Similar types of marine habitats and communities shall be
    replicated, to the extent possible, in more than one marine life
    reserve in each biogeographical region.
    (4) Marine life reserves shall be designed, to the extent
    practicable, to ensure that activities that upset the natural
    ecological functions of the area are avoided.
    (5) The MPA network and individual MPAs shall be of adequate size,
    number, type of protection, and location to ensure that each MPA
    meets its objectives and that the network as a whole meets the goals
    and guidelines of this chapter.
    (d) The department and team, in developing the preferred siting
    alternative, shall take into account the existence and location of
    commercial kelp beds.
    (e) The department and team may provide recommendations for
    phasing in the new MPAs in the preferred siting alternative.



    2858. The department shall establish a process for external peer
    review of the scientific basis for the master plan prepared pursuant
    to Section 2855. The peer review process may be based, to the extent
    practicable, on the peer review process described in Section 7062.



    2859. (a) On or before January 1, 2005, the department shall submit
    to the commission a draft of the master plan prepared pursuant to
    this chapter.
    (b) On or before April 1, 2005, after public review, not less than
    three public meetings, and appropriate modifications of the draft
    plan, the department shall submit a proposed final master plan to the
    commission. On or before December 1, 2005, the commission shall
    adopt a final master plan and a Marine Life Protection Program with
    regulations based on the plan and shall implement the program, to the
    extent funds are available. The commission's adoption of the plan
    and a program based on the plan shall not trigger an additional
    review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
    (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
    (c) The commission shall hold at least two public hearings on the
    master plan and the Marine Life Protection Program prior to adopting
    the plan and program. The commission may adopt the plan and the
    program immediately following the second public hearing or at any
    duly noticed subsequent meeting.
    (d) Upon the commission's adoption of the program, the commission
    shall submit the master plan and program description, including
    marine life reserve and other MPA designations, to the Joint
    Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture for review and comment. Upon
    receipt of the plan, the joint committee shall have 60 days to review
    the plan and to submit written recommendations to the commission
    regarding the plan and program. The joint committee shall only
    submit a recommendation to the commission if a majority of the
    members agree to that recommendation. The commission shall consider
    all recommendations submitted by the joint committee, and may amend
    the program to incorporate the recommendations. If the commission
    does not incorporate any recommendations submitted by the joint
    committee, the commission shall set forth, in writing, its reasons
    for not incorporating that recommendation.



    2860. (a) The commission may regulate commercial and recreational
    fishing and any other taking of marine species in MPAs.
    (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the taking
    of a marine species in a marine life reserve is prohibited for any
    purpose, including recreational and commercial fishing, except that
    the commission may authorize the taking of a marine species for
    scientific purposes, consistent with the purposes of this chapter,
    under a scientific collecting permit issued by the department.



    2861. (a) The commission shall, annually until the master plan is
    adopted and thereafter at least every three years, receive, consider,
    and promptly act upon petitions from any interested party, to add,
    delete, or modify MPAs, favoring those petitions that are compatible
    with the goals and guidelines of this chapter.
    (b) Prior to the adoption of a new MPA or the modification of an
    existing MPA that would make inoperative a statute, the commission
    shall provide a copy of the proposed MPA to the Legislature for
    review by the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture or, if
    there is no such committee, to the appropriate policy committee in
    each house of the Legislature.
    (c) Nothing in this chapter restricts any existing authority of
    the department or the commission to make changes to improve the
    management or design of existing MPAs or designate new MPAs prior to
    the completion of the master plan. The commission may abbreviate the
    master plan process to account for equivalent activities that have
    taken place before enactment of this chapter, providing that those
    activities are consistent with this chapter.



    2862. The department, in evaluating proposed projects with
    potential adverse impacts on marine life and habitat in MPAs, shall
    highlight those impacts in its analysis and comments related to the
    project and shall recommend measures to avoid or fully mitigate any
    impacts that are inconsistent with the goals and guidelines of this
    chapter or the objectives of the MPA.



    2863. The department shall confer as necessary with the United
    States Navy regarding issues related to its activities.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  2. BigJoe
    Online

    Thank you for posting the text of the MLPA act.

    In addition the Science Advisory Team (SAT) has determined the “key” habitats that must be captured inside marine protected areas in the South Coast Region are:
    rocky shore, sandy beach, surfgrass, coastal marsh, tidal flats, estuarine waters, eelgrass, kelp/rocky reef 0-30m, rocky reef 30-100m, rocky reef 100-200m, rocky reef >200m, soft bottom 0-30m, soft bottom 30-100m, soft bottom 100-200m, soft bottom >200m, submarine canyons, pinnacles, upwelling centers, and retention areas.

    The above measurements are in meters for your information here are feet:
    30 meters = 98.43 feet
    100 meters = 328 feet
    200 meters = 656 feet

    The SAT also states in order to cover the home ranges and life stages of species likely to benefit from MPAs they recommend an MPA cover the depth range from shore out to the 3nm state waters boundary. They also have minimum and preferred MPA sizes which are 9 square miles minimum and 18+ square miles preferred. Following this guidance you get a minimum sized MPA by covering about 3 statue miles of shoreline making a rectangle with east/west or north/south lines to the states water boundary. A preferred one would be about 6+ miles of shoreline out to the 3nm state boundary.

    In addition the SAT states that 90% of the biomass (species) associated with the habitats above represent adequate coverage of a habitat. Since rocky reefs have more species tightly packed together it takes less habitat area to cover those species than a soft bottom habitat where the species are spread out. Based covering enough habitat area they have developed minimum habitat area/sizes that have to be inside MPA areas in order to protect those species associated. Here is the list of recommended sizes:
    Rocky inter-tidal – 0.48 linear miles
    Kelp/rocky reef 0-30m – 1.14 linear miles
    Rocky reef 30-100m – 0.20 square miles
    Rocky reef >100m – 0.22 square miles
    Sandy beaches – 1.14 linear miles
    Soft bottom 0-30m – 1.14 linear miles
    Soft bottom 30-100m – 2.24 square miles
    Soft bottom 100-200m – 1.10 square miles
    Soft bottom >200m – 0.46 square miles
    Estuarine waters – 0.12 square miles (77 acres)

    The soft bottom habitat can also be grouped together so that an MPA contains 8 or more square miles of soft bottom habitat instead of the individual depth requirements.

    Then to make sure larvae can travel and settle between the areas of habitat in MPAs they recommend the habitats above be spaced at intervals along shore of 50 to 100 km (31 to 62 miles). This spacing counts for each habitat type so you should have 8+ square miles of soft bottom every 31 to 62 miles protected in MPAs, and 1.14 miles of Kelp/shallow reef every 31 to 62 miles, and so on…

    In addition the SAT assigns levels of protection to extractive activities that could be allowed in an MPA area based on how they would affect the habitat or ecosystem. Removing a highly migratory species like pelagic fish has little affect therefore a high level of protection, whereas removing a local predator like a kelp bass could change the ecosystem. The levels are very high (No take at all), high, moderate high, moderate, moderate low, and low. Only MPA areas that have a very high, high, or moderate high count for habitat protection.

    Based on the above guidance the best plan for MPA creation/placement and least fishing impact is to cover as much recommended habitat in each MPA you create. In addition you want to place those MPA areas so that each habitat exists inside an MPA within the spacing range of 31 to 62 miles. Since almost every mile of state waters south of Point Conception is utilized, someone is going to be displaced by this process. The goal is to find quality habitat areas that meet the recommendations and displace the fewest fishermen using that area, not an easily accomplished task.

  3. makohunterz
    Offline

    I don't have the time to read right now, but I will tonight... Thank You guys for helping us fishermen. This closures are gonna be horrible for kayakers
  4. bocker
    Offline

    Ok I read the first and second part... need to rest my eyes before getting into the third post by BiggestT.

    So far what I gather is that they are trying to do a good thing here... relax, don't hate. I'm trying to look at this objectivley.

    However, it does seem as though those in favor of the closures are the ones with the money and the ones in charge. It stated that after two meetings the closures could go into effect... I think we are fortunate this has not happened yet.

    My problem with the whole thing is that I don't see time lines... are the closures indefinite? Are they going off of scientific data on the areas to be part of the MPLA or just targeting the areas most popular to the fishing community?

    What is going on with the areas that have already been closed? We already have aquatic sanctuaries... Are the "scientists" conducting studies of the marine life in these areas?

    I find myself saying "What next?". I mean what if these areas are closed and we (fisherman) find new underwater structure with an abundance of game to fish... Will they target these areas next? Is their agenda truly for the benefit of oceanic wildlife? Or just a bunch of tree huggers that don't like to see people catch fish.

    What a mess...............
  5. Jan from Humbol
    Offline

    Two very important points to combating the complete MLPA closures, education and involvement.

    Good start Mike
  6. eviltwin
    Offline

    everyone should read this carefully and try to understand what is happening and what has already happend!!! everyone out there needs to get involved in this delema, cause if you think its not gonna afect you are wrong!!! find out from your local sources what you can do to help fix whats happening. ive seen firsthand what happens when the mlpa put there hand down and its not pretty at all !! I live in central/northern california and closures came out of no where, cause to many people laid down and rolled over! we gotta fight it and not give up !!! big thanks to B.D staff/moderaters for tryin to do there part !!:appl: hopefully we can make a difference! so our children, and there children can have bloody decks on there boatS...
  7. fleyeline
    Offline

    Yes and no.

    There are scientists trying to work to make the future of fishing better by allowing fish populations to flourish and at the same time you have the tree huggers taking the efforts of the scientists to the extreme. The scientists usually try to take a non-biased approach while the tree hugging, tofu eating, vegans, are extremely biased.

    Just trying to make the point that the scientists are not the bad guys....the tree huggers on the other hand....

    Thanks for starting this thread, I look forward to doing what I can to help. Keep it coming.
  8. Comedie
    Offline

    Jan and EvilTwin..... exactly right. You guys know up here in NorCal what has happened. Most of the best fishing areas are gone. The few left are getting concentrated fishing that turn them into deserts, whereby the 'scientists' say "See what the fishing guys did", and then those spots disappear too.

    The Coastside Club up here has been very active in fighting these things. But to some extrent it has been like beating heads against a wall. Enviro-nazis basically own and fund the decision process. And since the closure targets have been piecemeal, a lot of guys don't care because someone else is getting hit rather than themselves. And when their area comes up for a fight, likewise the other guys don't care.

    I'm not sure there is a way to win these things, but not getting involved is certainly a way to lose.

    SoCal at least has Mexico to run to for fishing, but that ability will probably come under fire at some point too.
  9. Comedie
    Offline

    You make it sound like the 'scientists' are all logical, rational, and unbiased. They are not. Consider who pays the academic scientists. Most of them seem to have been paid to do studies,,,, by the treehuggers. And when our club came up with the highly detailed and scientific 2XA proposal, it largely went down in flames because they decided "well, even the scientists disagree... so we'd better close areas down to be on the safe side".

    "Best available science" as a term is full of holes, and really it comes down to who is on the panel, what science they like, and what their motivation is.

    Oh,,, and I'm sure the money going to the CA DFG for consultation fees by the folks who want to shut down fishing has no influence at all... especially as official DFG funding is whittled away.
  10. Demon Cleaner
    Offline

    Why aren't slot sizes mentioned in the act?
  11. bocker
    Offline

    I'm pretty sure from what it looks like to me, it's going to be completely closed to fishing... not even catch and release. And I'm also gathering it's up to their discretion as to what defines -disturbing the area- when it refers as to weather or not an area can even be entered.

    I am just starting to figure this out a little... I think. You have to read it yourself. It has a lot of repeating and lawyer shit they add so your common man can't understand it. But it helped to read it.
  12. landingcrew
    Offline

    hey yall keep up the fight, we are supporting you guys out here 3000 miles away, keep it up, if yall need some extra support let me know and ill get the fires burning out here to help yall out.

    mark
    :Pelvic_Thrust:
  13. bocker
    Offline


    I don't know but maybe a letter from another state might have some leverage. Effecting the tourism in a sense that perhaps out of state fisherman/women plan yearly trips to So. Cal. for their annual fishing trip. Or maybe guys over seas looking forward to returning from WAR to San Diego and going fishing. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt...

    I hope this isn't a redundant request by now but can someone post the address where you can send a hand written letter or the link to the thread that has it? I know I've seen it but can't remember where I saw it.


    Chris
  14. Demon Cleaner
    Offline


    MLPA Initiative
    c/o California Natural Resources Agency
    1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
    Sacramento, CA 95814
  15. bocker
    Offline

    Thanks Jeff.
  16. Demon Cleaner
    Offline

    The way I read the act, it asks for input on how this will be managed/enforced. Is this not a method that should be included in the mapping process?
  17. Demon Cleaner
    Offline

    Has anyone asked Hubbs how this affects their research projects? How can they gather microchips from WSB if the habitat is cutoff from fishing?
  18. WreckinBall
    Offline

    Thanks Mikey and Steve for posting the info.

    It's a lot of legalese to sift through on a Sunday night, and at the end of it, based on the merits of what I read and understood, it's still difficult to read and understand.
  19. pemex
    Offline

    If we wont be able to fish, why not try to get all fishermen to NOT purchase fishing licenses in Dec. The impact will send the clearest message with the econics of the country at this point in time. The hit would prompt some change since they will rely on our monies to keep running. At least forthe first 2 months of the year, then we could purchase them if we are jonesing too hard, but it will send a definate message. That is about all the regular joe can do, this is going to happen.
  20. Comedie
    Offline

    You might want to try reading Pacific Coast Sportfishing - MLPA - Runaway Environmentalism and Pacific Coast Sportfishing - Funding the MLPA - Runaway Environmentalism Continues .

    Part of what we up North have seen is that if you want to see where the enemy is, follow the RLFF money.
    Who is that? You might want to read RLFF ,,,, and then realize who the donors are who set the mission.

    You SoCal guys better realize you just get one shot at this. If it takes a loss to build support and activism, then you have lost that part of the battle permanently. And you had better look very closely at who the RLFF has bought