BASS BARN banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

5,940 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I knew the headline would grab your attention...
You probably heard about the 'protest' PETA held on the AC boardwalk last week. TV40 even covered it.

But at the end of the day, what happened? Some goofy college kids grabbed some attention.

But is PETA really a threat? No. The real threat comes from the so-called 'mainstream' enviro groups. They passed a law in CA that mandates permanent no-fishing zones, whether they are needed or not (and trust me, 99.99% of the time they are not needed).

They are trying/have tried to pass similar laws in Mass., NY, DE, OR, and WA.

I sez it before and I sez it again. Forget PETA. Focus on the real threats.

Read below and weep......and where you see the list of areas that will likely be closed, think locally. Insert the names of your favorite fishing spots....because the enviros are not looking to close areas that you would not care about. They only want the best fishing spots.
So think "overfall', or 5fb, or stone beds,etc.

Fishing big part of preserve debate
Proposal pleases neither fishermen nor conservationists
- Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Friday, March 17, 2006

A state-appointed panel's recommendation Thursday for a chain of ocean reserves disappointed fishermen and conservationists, who differ over the amount of fishing that should occur along California's Central Coast.

The plan would prohibit sport and commercial fishing in about 10 percent of the state's near-shore waters between San Mateo and Santa Barbara counties. In addition, there would also be protected areas where some fishing would be allowed in about 8 percent of the Central Coast.

The Fish and Game Department will consider the recommendation and forward its preference by June to the Fish and Game Commission, which is expected to decide by 2007.

Under the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999, this is the first step in the statesetting aside ecologically important spots along the 1,200-mile coastline as a way to replenish depleted ocean life. The state has declared canary, boccacio and yelloweye rockfish to be overfished.

The only other extensive state marine-reserve systems in the United States are off the coasts of Florida and Hawaii.

Up for protection in California are kelp forests off the rocky headlands of Point Sur and the rocky islands that support elephant seal colonies at Año Nuevo. At Point Lobos, coves and underwater pinnacles and canyons support the squid, Dungeness crab, rockfish and finfish, abalone and salmon that attract otters, California brown pelicans and cormorants.

In a 3-2 vote on Wednesday, members of the panel selected by the state resources secretary decided to forward three proposals out of six, and recommended one of them as its preferred option.

The first proposal was prepared by fishermen and allied interests, and the second was written by a coalition of conservationists.

The panel's recommendation was the option written by marine scientists and staff members of federal and state resource agencies, dubbed "the Ph.D. group.'' The group, which also included a kayak-shop owner, developed it as a compromise between the fishermen's proposal and the conservationists' proposal.

The six panel members who attended the meeting -- one member left before the vote -- added protected areas to the compromise option from an option prepared by the panel's own staff of scientists.

In the fishermen's proposal, half of that area, or 5 percent of the Central Coast, had been closed to fishing. In the conservationists' proposal, fishing was prohibited in 13 percent of the Central Coast. The Monterey Aquarium, Friends of the Sea Otter, San Luis Obispo CoastKeeper, Cambria Fishing Club and Ocean Conservancy all supported this option.

Kaitilin Gaffney, a lawyer with Ocean Conservancy in Santa Cruz, said the members of the so-called conservation group still support the more protective option.

"The law calls for a coherent network of marine protected areas along the California coast. Our hope and goal is that one day soon we will have such a network and protect the marine life for the future of California. These are the Yosemites of the ocean, the iconic natural heritage sites,'' Gaffney said.

But members of the groups representing fishermen, kelp harvesters, abalone farmers, skin divers and harbormasters were disappointed that their package wasn't chosen as the preferred one.

"The fishing community feels that we shouldn't have to sacrifice any more fishing,'' said Mike Ricketts, president of the Monterey Fishermen's Marketing Association, whose members include as many as 40 salmon trollers, spotprawn trappers, crab-boat owners and squid fishermen that anchor in Monterey harbor.

In developing their proposal, the fishermen satisfied all the criteria to meet the standards under the act, Ricketts said. But the panel, in choosing a greater protected area than in their proposal, "sort of ignored the socioeconomics. This is what we can live with and still fish."

"It's not all set

Chain of ocean reserves considered for state
Hearings this week on ambitious plan to protect fisheries along coastal waters
- Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Tuesday, March 14, 2006

A pioneering plan designed to turn ecologically important spots in California's coastal waters into hundreds of miles of state parks to protect fish and other marine life will get its first public hearing today.

Under the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999, California would be the first state on the West Coast to establish a chain of marine reserves. The parks would serve as nurseries to replenish fish and other sea life depleted by more than a century of commercial and sport fishing, state officials said Monday.

Marine reserves proposed for the state's Central Coast include rich underwater ecosystems at Año Nuevo, Pacific Grove, Carmel, Point Lobos, Point Sur and Morro Bay, according to options under consideration by a state-appointed panel.

Those spots are some of the most biologically diverse in the world, where giant kelp forests, rocky reefs and underwater canyons and spires support bountiful populations of rockfish, shrimp, Dungeness crab, squid and the prey on which they depend.

The only other extensive state marine reserve systems in the United States are off the coasts of Florida and Hawaii.

California's marine parks plan, if adopted, could set strict limits against taking any living, geologic or cultural resource, from rockfish to rocky coral and sea stars.

"Protected areas will prevent those species from being overfished and ensure that the ecological roles that they play in an ecosystem are protected as well,'' said marine biologist Mark Carr, a UC Santa Cruz associate professor who serves as a scientific adviser to the panel that will recommend proposed reserves.

The proposed protections also would attempt to offset the negative effects of coastal development, water pollution and other harmful assaults from a growing human population.

And the state is proceeding with the marine reserve program amid concerns that the state Fish and Game Department does not have the money to carry out its mission. Supporters of the program have urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to add funding when he revises his budget in May.

Today and Wednesday in Seaside, near Monterey, a nine-member panel appointed by the state's resources secretary will review five proposals written by groups including fisherman, scientists and conservationists and one developed at the panel's request by its own staff.

Fishing would be banned or limited in varying degrees in all of the options in the Central Coast plan, which extends from San Mateo to Santa Barbara counties. By the end of the meeting, the panel is expected to recommend about two dozen locations off the Central Coast. The final decision lies with the Fish and Game Commission, which is scheduled to make its own selections by the end of the year.

Eventually, four to six other regions of reserves will be designated along the 1,200-mile California coast, including a separate plan for the San Francisco Bay. The reserves will lie in state waters, which reach from the shore to three miles out to sea.

The coastal waters are the focal point of some of the state's richest commercial and sport catches, and representatives of the fishing industry oppose big reserves, saying the strictly protected areas would leave them with empty nets.

"I'm personally skeptical that preserving the areas will actually benefit the fish populations,'' said Rick Algert, harbor director for the city of Morro Bay, who was part of the group developing the fishermen's option. About 60 commercial fishing boats anchor in his harbor.

Algert said that under one of the proposals developed by conservationists, "if you take the best fishing areas, it will put all the fishing pressure in the areas that remain open.''

The proposal has been two years in the making during which interested parties -- including fishermen, wholesalers, processors, divers, residents and scientists -- at more than 40 meetings have thrashed out five alternate ways to protect the coast.

The alternative crafted by fishermen allows for the largest commercial and sport take among the options; a second presents a conservation option; a third is a combination of the first and second options.

The fourth option was prepared by Natural Resources Defense Council and Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and a fifth is a product of local residents and focuses on protecting the otter range. The sixth option was developed by the staff of the state panel at the panel's request. Some interest groups have criticized the panel for weighing in with its own option as well as complaining that it's either too restrictive or not restrictive enough.

California was the first state to establish marine reserves, in 1913. There are small protected areas at Año Nuevo, Elkhorn Slough, Hopkins Marine Station, Carmel Bay, Point Lobos and seven other sites. In 2003, 10 new state reserves were added around the Channel Islands.

Research from some of these sites is being used to support the argument that setting aside reserves benefits the species and the ocean.

One study by UC Santa Cruz and U.S. Geological Survey scientists suggests that existing marine reserves in central California kelp forests may help sustain exploited populations by producing adults and larvae that depart the reserves for the wider ocean.

About $4 million has been spent on designing the options for Central Coast reserves. The money comes from state agencies and private foundations.

Sonke Mastrup, deputy director of wildlife and inland fisheries division at the Fish and Game Department, praised the public-private partnership that supported the citizen involvement. But Mastrup cautioned that "there is currently no funding to implement any of the proposals on the water.''

The annual cost to manage, monitor and enforce regulations for a set of Central Coast reserves is estimated to run between $3 million and $9 million a year, he said.

The plan will be the subject of meetings 10 a.m.-6 p.m. today and 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. Wednesday at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 1441 Canyon del Rey, Seaside. Go to

Proposed marine reserves

By the end of the year, the state Fish and Game Commission is expected to designate a chain of protected areas along the Central Coast. A state-appointed panel will review six proposals, including this plan mapped by its own staff, and then make a recommendation this week to Fish and Game.

State waters

From shoreline to 3 miles out in the ocean

Marine Reserve: Prohibits any taking of resources

Marine Park: Allows sport fishing but no commercial fishing

Marine Conservation Area: Allows some sport and commercial fishing

Soquel Canyon

Portuguese Ledge

Point Sur

Natural Bridges

Pacific Grove

Carmel Pinnacles

Santa Cruz

Año Nuevo

Julia Pfeiffer Burns

Point Lobos

Carmel Bay

Elkhorn Slough


Coho Slough

Ed Ricketts


Estero Bluff

East Morro Bay

Piedras Blancas

Morro Bay

Point Buchon

San Luis Obispo

Pismo Beach




Source: California Department of Fish and Game

[ 03-21-2006, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: egghead ]

9,261 Posts
Mike, As Always Thanks For Letting Us Know About These Types Of Things That Will Effect Our Sport.

And any suggestions as too what we can do,show up to counter-attack just say when and where...

Appreicate It,,,,

155 Posts
"Marine Park: Allows sport fishing but no commercial fishing"
Sounds good to me.
I've always said: If you want some to eat, go catch them yourself.
There isn't a sportfisherman in the world who would want a commf scraping his hotspot clean with a net.

[ 03-21-2006, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Pomoxis ]

5,940 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The idea of a marine park does not sound bad if unsustainable/damaging practices are taking place. Personally, I do not mind sharing spots with resposnible commercial fishing.

The rub here is that you cannot choose to only have parks. Under this law, you have to have closed areas, too.

It gets absurd. The fishermen had to explain why it was best to put the closed areas (in the case of CA) south of harbors. This way, a small boat guy is not fighting a head-sea when the afternoon picks up. They then have to hope the pinheads will agree.

Kayak and surf guys are impacted the most, for obvious reasons.

155 Posts
The rub here is that you cannot choose to only have parks. Under this law, you have to have closed areas, too.
I really didn't want to imply that I knew anything by what I said. Just spouting an opinion.
I'm sure there is a whole book of crap that goes along with it.
By "closed area" do they mean that you cannot even boat there? That would be unenforcable and crazy especially in adverse/emergency situations. Aren't there marine reserves in Florida where fishing is not allowed, but boating is?
1 - 6 of 6 Posts