Pew @ work!
Pew is not only out to destroy fishing in the United States, but world wide. Pew, as well as EDF, must be stopped.
Direct from the Pew web sight:
"The Pew Environmental Group is on a mission to create 15 massive marine sanctuaries by 2020. And the group is nowhere close to done. Pew helped spearhead the campaign to establish the reserve, which includes an area the size of Spain closed off to all fishing. The nonprofit was also instrumental in establishing the other largest marine reserves in the world: two near the northwest Hawaiian Islands and the Marianas Trench in 2009, and another encompassing the Chagos Archipelago, a string of islands and coral atolls in the Indian Ocean, in 2010. All told, the amount of ocean set aside from extractive activities adds up to 868,000 square miles -- an area larger than Greenland. And the group is nowhere close to done"
Tell me... how does creating marine sanctuaries -- where, presumably, fishing would not occur and which would lead to increased fish stocks -- equate to "destroy fishing in the United States, but world wide"? It seems to me that MPAs have quite the opposite effect than that which you suggest...
And it is simply ridiculous to suggest that PEW/EDF's goal is to either end fishing or make the world 100% MPAs. Shame on you for having to lie to make your point, Bob.
Refer to what California anglers are saying about the MLPAs implemented over there before sticking your foot in your mouth any more.
T's "fellow traveler" was reflected Bob and he is a bit wee wee'd up. Wait until the "blue green economy really starts kicking in.
Hi Tom, I'm well aware of what the California anglers are saying about MLPAs, and I fail to see how that suggests I am putting my foot in my mouth. Kindly explain that to me.
FV Miss Mary, I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I didn't vote for Obama. Please don't pretend to know what I think, who I support, or who my "fellow traveler[s]" are. I'm a lot of things, but shy is not one of them -- if you have a question, please ask rather than assume. Thanks.
Last edited by Tarponator; 11-29-2012 at 05:50 PM.
Bob, if you're worried about who is doing more "damage" to our fisheries, you might consider the impact of your own actions and those you shill for. To wit....
What's doing more damage to our fisheries?
To me, the answer is very clear. You are, of course, free to disagree....Mike
Is this REALLY where we want to be heading?
thats horrible looks like its time to sell the boat!
This is a frickin joke. I am not going to even try figure this out. I am 50 years old and have fished many of these areas my entire life in my own boat. That triangle off Laguna is a ridiculous. There is no way I could tell you if I was fishing in the closed area or no as the morthern most line seems to run due south and the southern line runs west. It's hard enough just to plot my way to various offshore weighpoints, and I am probably better at it than most guys. So now they have bounderies and areas with borders going in all different directions and i am suppose to know all these artificial lines as I negotiate up and down the coastline. It's not like they are marked off or show on my GPS. Who the hell came up with this great idea? It just ain't going to work, and if they try to enforce this on poeple by writing tickets there is going to be an all ourt revolt and fishermen who have long respected and supported the fish and game rules and department will instead revolt and be lined up against them.
Great job with all the work you and your paper have been doing. I will pass this to The Tuna Club.Thanks Mark Cernich
I have been following these since the beginning. At every meeting the CA.Fish and Game has said . We cannot enforce properly what we have now. There is no way to enforce this. The Tree People need to get a life. Hope the suit turns out in our favor or at the least hold it up in courts for years. Thank,Gary
Could have been a lot worse. They wanted a lot more area closed. Mark
screw the MLPA with the exception of a couple areas all they have done is reclose a couple areas i mostly fish north of laguna but how the hell are we supposed to tell where the bounderies are
Thank you for providing us with this very good tool.
thats a shame,whats next?regulating the days we can purchase fishing gear,and putting serial numbers on our lures with a 10 day waiting period before you can take it home,how sad.
This is extremely informative. Thanks for putting in the effort. I realized that I had a misunderstanding about the San Diego Scripp's area north of the pier. I didn't realize that it was limited to palegic fish by hook and line. If I am doing catch and release fly fishing from the beach, do you think I can say I am fishing for bonito and mackerel? I can call out "Oops" real loudly when I catch a halibut or corbina.
Sacramento, CA – December 15, 2010 – Despite ongoing legal concerns, the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) voted 3-2 to approve a wide-ranging array of marine protected areas (MPAs), essentially no-fishing zones, along the southern California coast. In its latest effort to implement the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), the commission’s vote indefinitely closes approximately 12 percent of southern California’s ocean to recreational fishing – including many of the state’s best recreational fishing areas.
“It’s beyond comprehension that the commission would go through with approving these regulations given the serious flaws in the process,” said Bob Fletcher of the Sportfishing Association of California and former Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Fish and Game. “The commission obviously had no desire to assure that a fair, open, objective and legally conducted process was in place before such a vote occurred. This vote leaves little doubt that the MLPA has is based on political agendas instead of the needs of California’s citizens and natural resources.”
The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), which represents recreational fishing and boating interests in California, has been actively engaged in the MLPA process since the North Central Coast phase. The PSO has voiced its concerns regarding the numerous flaws and a lack of transparency in the process. One of the PSO’s members, United Anglers of Southern California (UASC), has retained legal representation to investigate the legality of the MLPA process.
During the December 15, commission meeting, the PSO’s attorneys presented to the commission the numerous examples of defects in the rulemaking process, including many flaws that were discovered after reviewing MLPA planning documents that have only recently become public.
On October 1, 2010, a California Superior Court ruled that two MLPA planning groups – the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Master Plan Team , also known as the Science Advisory Team, are state agencies and therefore compelled by California’s Public Records Act to share information that they were withholding from public view. These groups would not respond to a Public Records Act request, incorrectly claiming they were not state agencies. In light of a PSO review of the documents provided to date, the commission was presented several notable findings prior to their vote, including evidence that the BRTF held numerous scheduled, agendized meetings which were closed to the public.
Other notable flaws and concerns with the MLPA process that were not taken into consideration by the commission include:
* Lack of funding for the necessary monitoring and enforcement of MPA regulations – a $40 million annual price tag.
* Negative economic impact of closures to saltwater recreational fishing, which contributes $2.3 billion to California’s economy annually and supports nearly 20,000 jobs.
* Major flaws in the environmental analysis of the impacts of the proposed South Coast regulations.
* Inconsistent and shifting guidelines throughout the process.
“The MLPA attempts to resolve a fisheries ‘crisis’ that simply does not exist. As a result of decades of successful traditional fisheries management, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, there is not one marine fish stock currently experiencing overfishing in California’s waters,” said Gordon Robertson, Vice President of the American Sportfishing Association, a PSO member. “Simply put: fisheries management in California is working and the MPAs are not necessary.”
“While we are deeply disturbed that the commission would go forward with approving these regulations, the process is not over yet,” noted John Riordan, Board Member of UASC. “The PSO legal effort is working to protect the interests of recreational anglers and is making significant progress. I urge all anglers and anyone concerned with the MLPA to visit www.oceanaccessprotectionfund.org and make a donation to help the fight against this flawed process in the courts.”
Last edited by Tom Hilton; 11-30-2012 at 12:08 AM.
So I dig a lot digging to see how MPAs might have affected fishing. I obtained all this data, yes actual data or Facts, from the RecFIN database (where CA has their data) from 2004-2011. The first MPA was implemented in 2007, so this shows a before/after picture. I think you can get more localized data, as CA divides the state into districts, but I went for the whole thing
These are the numbers and are in thousands (so, 785k = 785,000)
I also looked at number of rockfish (their big fishery in CA)
Year #anglers #rockfish
2004 708k 352k
2005 902k 462k
2006 896k 601k
2007 768k 492k
2008 640k 453k
2009 676k 582k
2010 655k 481k
2011 621k 584k
There is fluctuations, though overall, given weather gas (especially there!) the variation in catch isn't that high between years. There is a noticible break after '07, but the numbers of anglers seem to stabilize. From the DFG site, it seems one MPA zone was implemented in 07, 10 and two in 2012.
interesting stuff and great way to blow off a day at work!