- NEWS
- SPORTS
- Lakers' victory over Celtics worth embracing 3 hours & 25 minutes ago
- Fryer: Welch in jeopardy but should keep job
- CSF stars making last stands 2 hours & 14 minutes ago
- Ducks in must-win mode 3 hours & 50 minutes ago
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
No-fishing zone off Laguna: activists say protection is needed
September 11th, 2009, 2:58 pm · 33 Comments · posted by Pat Brennan, science, environment editor
As the small plane made a broad curve out of John Wayne Airport and down the Orange County coast, Ray Hiemstra of the Orange County Coastkeeper rattled off the familiar names of coves and bays and beaches scrolling beneath him like a giant, 3-D map. 
Hiemstra was one of 64 stakeholders who worked for a year to create proposed habitat protection zones off the Southern California coast known as marine protected areas, or MPAs. This week, the stakeholders produced their last set of three maps — all of them including a miles-long zone off Laguna Beach that would be closed to fishing.
It could be another year before new protection areas for Southern California gain approval.
“Upper Newport Bay — this is one of the areas that will be an MPA,” Hiemstra said during the flight, taken late last month. “Estuaries are a very high priority.”
The two camps appear to have vastly different ideas about how badly coastal marine habitat needs protecting, and how much such protection could hurt the coastal economy.
And a variety of protection levels will likely be applied to different parts of the coast. Some, like the state Marine Reserves marked in red, would allow no “take” of marine resources, such as fishing. Boats could still move through the areas and anchor there.
The Laguna coast is emerging as one of the important targets for such protection on the Southern California coast. Hiemstra and Sarah Sikich, the coastal resources director for Heal the Bay who was also on the flight, hope for a no-take area spanning as much as six miles along the Laguna coast.
“They’re claiming this is too big,” Sikich said of the fishing groups. “But six miles of coast is right in line with what the scientists have advised us.”
Areas marked in blue on the proposed maps would be State Marine Conservation areas, with limited commercial and recreational fishing. Other areas in green and yellow would have different sets of requirements (See portions of the proposed maps in a video archive; the three maps won’t be released to the public for as long as two weeks.)
Hiemstra listed a number of other names familiar to Orange County beachgoers as he flew above them: Abalone Point, Reef Point, Table Rock, Heisler Park, Treasure Island, Three-Arch Bay, Dana Point — places that might or might not fall under new protections when the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative is finished in Southern California.
“From Crystal Cove back to Table Rock — that is probably one of the richest areas we have,” Hiemstra said.
The map makers had to be mindful of rich habitat, including kelp beds, and areas to avoid, such as outfall pipes for treated sewage or areas, like those around San Clemente Island, controlled by the Department of Defense. 
Hiemstra says he and other conservationists are trying to be mindful of the needs of the fishing community. But he says the underwater habitats, which he believes are suffering harmful effects from fishing and other factors, must be better protected.
“What we’re trying to do is establish some underwater Yosemites,” he said.
(Register photo of Laguna Beach coast by Leonard Ortiz.)
Related posts:
- No-fishing zone off Laguna: O.C. fishermen fear economic harm
- No-fishing zone likely off Laguna Beach
Latest posts:
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
33 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
-
16th annual People’s Choice
From your favorite restaurants and shops to the best day spa in town, here are your choices for the number one places to eat, shop and play in O.C.
Browse the 2009 Best of Orange County winners-
ADVERTISEMENT
This is a very confusing article. You talk about Laguna, but the “Existing Protected Areas” encompass almost the entire coast from Corona Del Mar to Doheny Beach. Is the present restriction 3 miles for all of the “state marine conservation areas” or is the map completely erroneous ? Will the new rules be 3 miles everywhere except Laguna and there it will be 6 miles?
Bottom line – Without a 10 year comparative quantitative study by a group that is not funding by a liberal university program, a liberal activist group or the sportfishing industry, I don’t believe legislators have adequate information to make an intelligent decision.
Not having good info never stopped legislators from making a decision before.
Correction: The legislature is not making the MPAs. Stakeholders are creating the whole thing.
This is the 9-11 of the west coast, where environmental extremists have hijacked our coast from the citizens of California in the same manner as any the Middle Eastern extremist group attempts to steal freedom from the American people.
The beaches belong to all of us, not just marine mammals and fish.
This is insanity at its purist. Someone please stop these people!
Andres Betts, M.D. Physician, Father and Surfer.
Ray Hiemstra is not a conservationist, he is an activist…. period. The group of 64 are not stakeholders, their activists… period.
Another sign journalism has died.
I love to fish and love the ocean. I feel that the recreational fishermen get a bum rap on the state of our coastal fisheries. Most recreational fishermen are conservationist at heart and get the brunt of the blame game and the MPA’s a land grab that will do very little for the state of our local marine enviroment.
We (population off of California) Keep dumping our trash ,waste water, pet droppings,oil drippings,dredge spoilage,insecticides, herbicides, algicides and fertilizers into our waters. Just look at our waters after a storm. Red tides during the spring and summer. The treated sewage that we dump into our waters cannot remove alot of toxins that effect a fishes reproductive systems (synthetic estrogens)are major problems we face.
Recreational fishermen are stewards of the oceans and care deeply and voice our displeasure of what is happening out there. We are the eyes that see this happening. The powers that be take no notice of this and take the cheapest and easiest route without any scientific data to back up their ideas. Only to bow to pressures that want to see their agenda pushed through.
If anyone wants to see what is happening to this process follow the money trail. Who are the people and organizations funding this effort?
As long as nature has the habitat, forage and shelter it will flourish up to it’s carrying capacity. Take the hard road and clean up our waters. Stop building on our estuaries and funneling wastes into them with concrete drainages. The oceans should not be our personal toilet bowl.
With water clarity our kelp beds will grow and flourishand so will our fisheries. Recreational fishermen have done whatever sound science has asked them to do. Black Seabass are now beggining to expand it’s population. White Seabass hatcheries worked on by volunteer recreational fishermen. We are the eyes that report poaching and other unlawful activities. We do not want to see the wanton destruction of our coast and islands.
Reduce our bag limits. Create slot limits based on sound science but closures so millionaires can have their ocean view and sense of doing something green is just wrong.
Fishing may not be your bag of tea but it is a heritage to many. Passed on from father/mom to son/daughter. Recreational fishing helps our economy and supports many jobs.
Clean up our oceans recreational fishermen will be the eye and ears to what is really happening out there.
Regards
Mark
These “stakeholders” fail to recognize that fishing license fees pay for a lot of habitat restoration. It is the fishing and diving communities that are paying to keep our coast clean and productive. If all fishing along the coast from NB to Dana is banned, the local boats will be out of business and who will then pay for the habitat? It has become clear over time that the “activist” community will keep working for no take zones until the entire state will be off limits to fishermen and sport divers.
This is just the start…
So much for me taking my grandson fishing!
Re-evaluate the purse seiners and forign country fishing boats.
How can this state keep taking away and keep spending before we loose everything? All I see here is a small group of powerful people trying to impose their ideas without much needed research.
If reducing the taking of fish from these areas is proven that it is needed wouldn’t it just make scene to reduce the catch limits instead?
With our state facing the largest deficit and unemployment rate ever, it amazes me that these enviro, extremist, special interest groups are even considering closing down many areas of our coastline right now. Closing our coast to fishing WILL increase our unemployment by 14,000+ from businesses that will have to close their doors, and our state will lose tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue generated from over $2 BILLION a year in sales related to the fishing/diving industry. On top of this these closures will cost our state anywhere from $11-$40 million a year to manage. No one is really sure because the MLPA/BRTF group keeps changing the figures to suit their needs.
There’s no more money for SCHOOLS-FIRE-POLICE, but the state will make us, the taxpayers, foot this bill !?! COME ON !!!!
Backed by the Packard Foundation and its leader Julie Packard, these enviros are trying to put the blame on fisherman for decreasing fish populations and are spending millions to try and get these closures. Their “studies” completely contradict every study done for decades by world renowned echo scientists. Yet you do not hear about them trying to stop the true cause…………..RUNOFF POLUTION !!! The facts are that fisherman only account for >5% of the fish take so why are they spending so much time and money focusing on fisherman? Look up who is on the committees and follow the money.
It’s really sad that these enviro extremists feel that ground fish are more important than human lives !!!
No More sand castles in Laguna
What a sad day. As a fisherman I am saddened by the possibility that all of Laguna could be closed to fishing. As a father I am more saddened to think that when this is enacted the millions of kids that visit Laguna beach each year and for generations to come will no longer be able to play in the sand as has been done for generations. You see, part of the definition of take according to the DFG is to “capture”. As Laguna will be a no take zone getting a bucket of wet sand will without question “capture” some sand crabs during their summer return to our shores, thus making that illegal. Going in and getting a bucket full of water will undoubtedly “capture” zooplankton and fish fry, thus making that illegal. So unless you can build a sand castle out of dry sand they are about to disappear from Laguna beach forever.
How long until it is illegal to walk in the inter tidal zone because of the potential damage that it does to the sand crabs (which are the primary forage for many species) and to the grunion larvae? We are on a slippery slope and Laguna is walking right down it with both eyes open.
There is a massive assault on our freedoms and rights on how we use our public lands and waters that is being funded by major corperations/ land barons with their aquired wealth living adjacent to OUR national forests and waters that proposals like MLPA,WILD AND SCENIC, WILDERNESS get voted in turn lands and waters near and adjacent to into THEIR PRIVATE SANCTUARIES funded by and to never be used by the TAX PAYING PUBLIC AGAIN!!!!!! Please take a look at the proposed areas to be closed in the Southern California bight. These closures include SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, MALIBU, PALOS VERDE and a vast stretch of the ORANGE COUNTY. Somebody please tell me I’m wrong and this is just a coincidence?
They need to protect water quality not eliminate the fishermen. Where is the plan on waste water run-off, fertilizer and chemical run off or the simple fact Laguna can’t even manage their own sewer systems that dump into the ocean.
It’s the simple fact that these people want to eliminate fishermen…that’s it. I think we need to take the next step and eliminate windshields on cars in Laguna…They kill too many bugs. The bugs have rights too!
We are about to loose our fishing rights! People opposed to fishing have taken on the cloak of environmental activism in an effort to shut down all fishing in the USA and have moved the fight to southern California. These people are well funded, politically savvy and will stop at nothing in an effort to ban all fishing in our state at any cost. In the beginning the MLPA was viewed as a scientific method of stabilizing fish stocks in the coastal areas of our country. Unfortunately no science has been used in the So Cal process, only heart felt opinions held by people that think Disney films are based on science, i.e. Penguins talk and dance don’t they? As fishermen we want sustainable fish stocks, clean pollution free water and access to the ocean so we can continue 10,000 years of fishing legacy. How is this different from what the environmentalist want, its not! That’s the issue here; they want to put an end to fishing in the USA bottom line and will not stop until fishing is illegal.
As a responsible fisherman I am opposed to no take fish reserves that do nothing to increase threatened fish stocks but do allow special interests and organizations with massive amounts of money and influence to control our oceans and beach access. Enough is too much especially during a time when our economic future is at stake and the MLPA’s will suck up another $45 million dollars a year at today’s estimation while providing no science to show it can improve fish stocks at any level.
With all the articles I have read & all the so called studies that have been conducted the whole thing still does not make any sense. The white seabass & the black seabass fishery has made a tremendous comeback in recent years because of the concerns, donations & responsibilities of FISHERMEN! No one else spends as much time on the water monitering the situation. The present MLPA budget is over 30 MILLION a year, this at a time when Ca. can’t even afford to hire new game wardens. The answer here is better regulation (size & bag limits) not closures.
no closures , just catch and release or 1-2m fish limits . Fishermen
for the most part are praciticing this policy on their own now . Except sport boats would need to adhere to this policy — they keep everything
If there’s closures seals will have an open diningarea
The seal dining area is EXACTLY what the enviro-wackos are drooling over. The more seals there are, the more they can coo, “how cute” while the state’s fishermen have their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FISH stolen by these smarmy do-gooders
These MLPA idea was started by activists not scientific data. Your acrticle and poll question is very limited relating the closures to just how it affects Laguna Beach. The MLPA affects the entire coast of the state and goes beyond just the finaniacl impack of one city. There is no harbor, launch ramp or other facilites is L.B. other than fishing offshore or from the surf so this city would not be affected. There are many cities that will be very much negitivly affected and businesses will have to shut down. I have been fishing in the O.C. area for 30 years and have not seen that rectreational sportfishing has had any negative impact, the ocean enviroment is an ever changing enviroment. It will take a very long term and unbiased scincetific study to dteremine what if any restrictions should be put in effect. The actifists that are trying to shut down fishing should be concitraiting on more important issues that negativly impact the ocean such as urban runoff and the discharge of garbarg form the L.A. and San Gabreial rivers just to name a few.
Lets get real here ,for the pepole who live in Laguna its not a (Lets save the ocean thing) Its a lets save our view of the ocean and keep pepole from walking on what they think is there beach.
I’m so saddened by what the MLPA/BRTF and the Packard foundation are doing. I’m 16 and 11th grade in High School in the San Fernando Valley. To say, my school has no money for anything and the teachers some of the classroom materials which is RIDICULOUS! Why cant the Packard foundation spend thier money on
SCHOOLS/ LOCAL AUTHORITY???? These people are moronic extremist / enviros who want fun to be taken away from people for the price that hurts OUR AMERICAN CITIZENS’ TAXES AND TAKES AWAY OUR FREEDOM OF HAVING FUN WITH MY DAD, OR DAD’S HAVING FUN WITH THEIR KIDS. A lot of people here stated that California’s fisheries aren’t overfished or going extinct, so why use your biased science and opinions to hurt us (Americans, American Fishermen, Tax Payers). Of course your scientists are going to come up with data that makes FISH populations seem bad, but ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS YOUR MONEY NOT YOUR ENVIRONMENT OR YOUR SO-CALLED “CAUSE”.
I also am and Avid fisherman, and my dad recently bought a boat for fishing in the Saltwater and especially the areas they want to close down! Why DID THEY HAVE TO DO THIS TO ME AND HIM? NOW I HAVE A WORTHLESS BOAT AND MY DEARLY FATHER HAS SOME EXTRA UNNECESSARY DEBT TO HIS NAME!!!!! I HATE the MLPA/ Julia Packard/ “Governator”/ Mike Sutton/ BRTF….
Thanks for messing it all up for me and the American Taxpayer.
I used to think I was going to be a DEMOCRAT/LIBERAL, but ONE less now, so good day, Enjoy your lives, while I hate yours.
This MLPA idea was started by activists emotion and not with scientific data. Your article and poll question is very limited relating the closures to just how it affects Laguna Beach. The MLPA affects the entire coast of the state and goes beyond just the financial impact of one city. There is no harbor, launch ramp or other fishing facility in Laguna Beach other than fishing from the surf so this city would not be affected. There are many cities that will be very much negatively affected and businesses will have to shut down. I have been fishing in the O.C. area for 30 years and have not seen that recreational sport fishing has had any negative impact on the oceans resources. The ocean’s environment is an ever-changing environment. It would take a very long term and unbiased scientific study to determine what if any adverse affect recreational fishing has had on the ocean and what if any restrictions should be put in effect. The activists that are trying to shut down fishing should be concentrating on more important issues that negatively impact the ocean such as urban runoff and the discharge of garbage from the L.A. and San Gabriel rivers to name a few.
Typical play on the media’s part. “No, fishing is too important to the local economy” is what the NO vote indicates. That does not indicate all or any of the other reasons to vote no. Such as the MLPA closures do nothing for clean storm water, nothing for pollution. The MLPA process is flawed. They’re saying it will only cost a couple hundred thousand to operate and police the sites. It is such a greater amount that most likely there will nothing enforced. Why increase the debt to Californians at a time like now ? Teachers, the police, fire districts, and prisons are all out of money. Arnold again is wrongfully and stupidly siding with the fringe hollywood left crowd. This includes Julia Packard, the Packard Foundation of Hewlitt Packard Corp. Stop buying HP Products, you are simply killing yourself in a sense.
Since when has anyone determined that a man and his son have done any damage to the ocean by dangling a couple of lines in the water?
Give me a break!!! Fishermen are an easy target and the mlpa doesn’t have the guts to go after the people who do cause damage – the massive dumping of black water from the cargo ships, the raw sewage pipes, industrial waste flowing down the LA and other local rivers. The mlpa must do something so that they can keep their funding from the Packard foundation. The Commissioner of the dept of fish and game is also on the Packard payroll. (There’s your story of corruption OC Register!!)
Protect the ocean…I am all for it! Going after recreational fishermen? Corrupt, criminal, and just plain crazy.
Southern California does not have a depleted or over fished fishery.
[Marine scientists Boris Worm and Ray Hilborn, reported in the July 31 issue of Science magazine, finds the California Current ecosystem is among the world regions "with the lowest exploitation rates of any place we examined."]
Please review Highlights from the MLPA Science Review
by Ray W. Hilborn, PhD, Richard H. Parrish, PhD and Carl J. Walters, PhDhttp://www.cafisheriescoalition.org/science_review.htm
Also please read:
Friday, August 21, 2009
No-fishing areas don’t address ocean problems
By Vern Goehring in the San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, August 21, 2009
Marine Protected Areas include no-fishing areas.
Why is California committing to spend millions on a new ocean protection program when it can’t afford health care for children, state parks, schools or to keep inmates in prison?
The governor supposedly looked into every cupboard and behind every door to eliminate, reduce or postpone expenditures. Yet his administration persists in a program to create Marine Protected Areas that most people see simply as insurance to protect the ocean and that possibly will cost state taxpayers as much as $55 million annually.
When the Marine Life Protection Act was enacted in 1999 under Gov. Gray Davis, the annual cost was estimated at $250,000. But after considering the requirements to monitor, manage and enforce fishing restrictions linked to Marine Protected Areas, the state Department of Fish and Game now estimates it will need $35 million to $55 million a year to do the job once the program is up and running. That’s enough to keep more of the 279 state parks open and is equivalent to one-third of the money cut from the Healthy Families Program.
Marine Protected Areas might be worth this cost if they included a comprehensive plan of coordinated state actions to protect the ocean, but without that, Marine Protected Areas only create an illusion of a comprehensive system of protection and conservation – precisely what the Legislature sought to avoid.
What the administration is doing is simply prohibiting fishing.
Proponents of no-fishing areas suggest that expansive fishing closures will protect the ocean, yet no studies or reports indicate that fishing is the primary threat to California’s marine environment.
No estimates exist of the benefits species or ecosystems will reap from fishing closures.
In fact, much evidence suggests that pollution is the major problem and climate change is the emerging threat to marine life.
The Chronicle’s Aug. 5 editorial, “On Establishment of Marine Reserves: An ocean preserver,” and other proponents of no-fishing areas lump California with other parts of the world that have overfishing problems. A review of worldwide fishing management by marine scientists Boris Worm and Ray Hilborn, reported in the July 31 issue of Science magazine, finds the California Current ecosystem is among the world regions “with the lowest exploitation rates of any place we examined.”
Worm and Hilborn document that these precautionary measures of creating Marine Protected Areas are making restoration of depleted fisheries more difficult in developing countries “as some fishing effort is displaced to countries with weaker laws and enforcement capacity.” Needlessly restricting fishing compounds this effect, as it may also compound the climate change threat to our oceans.
So is the governor saying one thing while he does another? By creating Marine Protected Areas while he threatens the ocean with his proposal for new offshore oil drilling, his legacy may be a bit difficult to determine.
Vern Goehring is manager of the California Fisheries Coalition, an association of 27 marine-related organizations whose members advocate for cleaner oceans and sustainable marine resources, and contribute more than $5.5 billion annually to the state’s economy.
A Fix for Troubled Waters?
By Bob Bertelli, The Daily Breeze
9/06/2009
In 1999, the Marine Life Protection Act was enacted because California’s leaders recognized that coastal development, water pollution and other human activities threaten the health of marine habitat and biological diversity in our ocean waters.
When passed, the act was intended to be a broad conservation program that would fold together laws protecting water quality, coastal development, fishing and other efforts to minimize threats to our ocean. The Legislature recognized that, without a system of coordinated state actions, marine managed areas only “create an illusion of a comprehensive system” of protection and conservation.”
And while we’ve known for years that threats from development and pollution – which studies show is the major problem facing our ocean – were never in doubt, the effects of fishing and nonconsumptive activities are tougher to determine.
In fact, ongoing development like the new mega resort at the old Marineland site at Palos Verdes, and numerous reports of major water-quality problems along our coast, confirm that coastal development and water pollution, not fishing, are the main threat.
Yet instead of attacking the biggest issues, regulators are simply using the law to prohibit fishing, saying that expansive fishing closures will protect the ocean. But that doesn’t match up with any science.
Consider a landmark research article published this summer in Science magazine. It showed that California’s marine ecosystem has the lowest exploitation rates of any examined region in the world. The report documented that our state’s fishery management is the best in the world and problems that may have existed were already being addressed prior to 1999.
But sadly, a comprehensive plan that considers all science and one that does more than duplicate existing fishing regulations isn’t part of the act’s implementation.
Between 1999 and 2004, there were two efforts to implement the act and both failed. They suffered from a lack of adequate resources and did not provide sufficient information to the public, particularly regarding the potential socioeconomic impacts of marine reserves.
So in the summer of 2004, the California Department of Fish & Game, the California Resources Agency and a private entity known as the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation entered into a partnership to implement the law.
Sounds good, right? Consider the following: The foundation, which funds the act’s implementation with money from wealthy and influential environmental nongovernmental organizations and trusts, can, if it does not like the direction in which the implementation is going, take its millions of dollars off the table and go home.
And since California is broke and the governor is desperately seeking to create a positive legacy to make up for the state’s finances, it creates a perverse incentive to do things the way the foundation wants. Further, the partnership agreement requires full implementation of the act by 2011, a date not specified in the law.
An artificial target date, private money and a governor’s need for a legacy means the real problems plaguing the ocean will not be addressed.
I would prefer our ocean resources be managed for all Californians, based on sound marine science, not political science.
How to comment
IN WRITING
E-mail: mlpacomments@resources.ca.gov
Mail: MLPA Initiative, c/o California Natural Resources Agency, 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814.
You can also read comments submitted by others at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/ publiccomments_sc.asp.
The areas do not need to be shut down. Proper management is all we need.
This is just another right we are losing as the silent majority stays silent!
As a concerned voter, I am writing to you regarding the Marine Protection Areas process in Southern California. As you know, the Department of Fish and Game is reviewing whether to close large areas in Southern California and turn them into marine reserves. Unfortunately, they are not using unbiased scientific information, and this could result in disaster for the California ecosystem and economy.
All known research shows that turning large areas of our oceans into reserves will cause fish stocks to be severely depleted in the remaining areas, with little to no spillover from the reserves. This in turn damages the economy and local fisheries by allowing the entire ecosystem to be depleted on the remainder of the coastline!
I am very worried that the current MPA are not working in the state’s Representatives best interests, the recreational fishing industry alone in California has an unbelievable 2.4 million anglers contributing over $4.9 billion to the state’s economy! The proposed MPA measures are meaning to cut these numbers in half, which could have a repercussion on the over 43,000 registered voters whose jobs depend on our beautiful California oceans. The state’s current $14 billion budget deficit has put California in a fiscal crisis, and losing half of $2.5 billion and 22,000 jobs during this time would only have disastrous effects on our economy, as well as on voters opinions in the upcoming elections.
As a concerned voter, I urge you to push the Department of Fish and Game to introduce proper science and management of fish stocks over the large MPAs that are poised to further harm our once great state’s economy.
The entire MLPA process saddens me. Why you as? I am a father of 2 children ages 9 & 12 who love to be out of the ocean fishing, they don’t want to catch a cooler full of fish, they like to be out on our boat, cruising up and down the beautiful california coastline in hope of taking home a fish or 2 for dinner that evening. We as fishermen are not robbing the ocean of it’s resources, we limit ourselves and we have self imposed legal limits in regards to the fishes we take. Those limits are regulated and enforced by the Department of Fish & Game. Our licences pay the DFG’s wages and expenses. We fishermen & women take pride in our ocean and all it has to offer. We don’t pollute it, we don’t desecrate it, we enjoy it and we enjoy sharing it with our children and our grandchildren in hopes that some day they will be able to take their children fishing just has we have. I don’t know exactly how my father & grandfather would react if they were alive today and were to be faced with the Liberal Extremist’s attempts of imposing their will, their trust funds, and their skewed research data. But I would assume that both of these very proud men would probably have tears rolling down their faces if they were unable to teach their children and grandchildren to fish.
We fathers, mothers, grandparents, sisters & brothers enjoy fishing in the ocean, please allow us to continue doing so.
Thanks for your time,
Brandon, Jade, & FKG
“Environmental activists and conservationists clashed with members of the fishing community during the map-making process, both within the stakeholder group and outside it.”
This says it all. Bias against fishermen.
Fishermen are Environmentalist as well as conservationist. They just have a more open mind. Fishermen are not then enemy…pollution IS!
Conservation, not closure. Fishermen are open to conservation. We (they) are not the bad guys. We want to keep the fish around…..we want to save the fish. We want to teach out kids to fish, we want to (we do) teach our kid to respect the resource. But shutting fishermen out is just “environmentalist” doing what they do best…. stereotyping. You kill fish, you must be bad, you must be the bad guys.
This LAW is bad for the economy, bad for fishermen, and founded ad based on wrong science. Not bad, just wrong. Not to mention this was suppose to be publicly funded, as in paid for by TAX dollars..but the state is broke, so who did the government go to too fund it. LOOK UP PACARD FUND. Just Google it, Really/ Just GOOGLE IT. Talk about a conflict of interest. Its like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Some of the most conservation minded people I know are hunters and fishermen.
MIKE
RSM
FKG in the HOUSE.
“Teach a kid to fish and they will never forget you.”
Our tax dollars whould be used to keep these areas USABLE and VIABLE. Why should we pay for something to have people take it away from us? Fishing is NOT to blame for our oceans deterioration. Closures are a fruitless effort to correct a much larger problem and it’s a shame that so many people passionate about fishing are going to lose so much while those passionate about “saving” our oceans are going to gain so little from this.
Many of the anti-fishing players in the MLPA process still fail to address the absurdity, that the MLPA was created for “habitat protection” yet only addresses and restricts fishing activity. You can still drag out large stringer of kelp, smash up reefs by anchoring or destroy large parts of the kelp with your boat props. This law also does nothing to address the overdevelopment of our coast and the serious run-off pollution. Its just ludicris to restrict fishing alone without addressing these other problems and then just expecting that biodiversity and biomass will just magically escalate.
Ever been to crystal cove or other parts of Laguna after a good rain or swell? Trash everywhere! How is restricting fishing going to protect the habitat from the trash, chemical pollutants?
I am not opposed to SMALL MPAs – but 9 square miles as the minimum size? All based on extrapolated data and theoretical models from scientists that have so much to gain from getting grant money to study these “experimental study MPAs.” Tell that to all of the fishing related businesses in Laguna!
Conservation not closure. The MLPA was created with good intent but has been transformed into a terrible threat to the California economy adn way of life for many people.
I love to fish as much as the next guy, and sure, I am not thrilled about some of this, but I also have an eye on the future. Let’s be honest here: fish populations in this area need a break- the MLPA guys have the right idea- setting aside some areas actually makes good sense- give the system a chance to recover, leave more fish for my kids, and keep most of the ocean open. So when I take a second, and think about the years after this- it turns out I AM willing to change where I fish so my grandkids have something left- no brainer.
They say these areas are “underwater parks” – versions of our parks on land. The truth is, these are better in terms of their benefit to people. I did a little reading recently and found out that these areas can actually become nurseries which breed bigger and better fish. These fish swim outside of the protected areas into waters where I can fish for them. So MPAs = bigger fish for me and more fish for my grandkids. Now THAT is something I can get behind.
Yosemite allows fishing within its boundries, and an underwater “park” should allow fishing within it’s boundries as well. What both need is protection from developement and the polution caused by it. Fishing leaves a zero impact on the environment and should be left out of the picture. The unbridled developement in laguna and south OC needs to be controlled and the polution caused by it needs to be mitigated. Solve that first and you will have solved the ocean problems off our coasts.