MLPA makes front page of LA Times

[FrankPro1]

The Long Point / Vicente reserve looks to be on its way, but the protection of Laguna Beach and Point Dume came at the cost of keeping the rest of Palos Verdes and most of Catalina Island open to fishing. I can see these closures forcing anglers/spearos out of there local sites to come hunt in my backyard.

Here's the full article: Panel backs no-fishing zones off Southern California coast -- latimes.com

 

[Teamcasa]

More here:

California Department of Fish & Game, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

 

[FrankPro1]

More here:

California Department of Fish & Game, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

I looked around, but it doesn't seem they've updated since yesterday evening. Did you catch something I'm missing?

 

[Teamcasa]

It has a bunch of maps but I'm not sure how updated they are.

I've been searching for more information on the closures as well.

 

[Skull]

Talked to a F&G census person at Dana Landing here is SD ..looks like it is on hold till 2010 . If they enact the entire MLPA it is going to cost every coastal community billions in fishing revenues, licensing fees, and tourism dollars. I understand the reasoning for the MLPA but I think it is going to too costly if the entire thing is pushed through.

 

[drbill]

And, Skull, I think it will be too costly... costly to the ecosystems and future generations if we don't. This is too little, but hopefully not too late.

The BRTF meeting summarized things way too fast for my "mature" mind to comprehend everything they did (OK, so I was distracted Skyping with a lovely lady). I look forward to finding out the details in what they rushed through at the end of the meeting.

Personally, I thought the way modifications were made to the proposals by the BRTF were disturbing. After a year of process, members of the BRTF were able to modify MPAs and their intent on the spur of the moment? I find that a discredit to the long months of hard work by Stakeholders on all sides.

I also wonder how things might have gone differently if Caleyforneeya weren't in such dismal economic condition. I think this unfortunate fact affected what was supposed to be a science-based process.

 

[jridg]

MY question - not directed at anyone in particular - is this:

What will the fishing/tourism industry do when there are no more fish to attract people/tourists/fishing boats?

Oh, I know - it won't be there generating any revenue for anyone.

The fierce opposition to responsible stewardship of our very fragile and limited natural resources (not just here, but around the planet) is not only disturbing, it is out right frightening. If we don't start operating in a resposible manner, (sure, it can hurt, but it will keep these areas, industries, and the ecosystem alive and kicking) we won't have a choice - there won't be any more and we will be S.O.L.

Short-sighted, short-term, views are irresponsible.

That's my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[Teamcasa]

Talked to a F&G census person at Dana Landing here is SD ..looks like it is on hold till 2010 . If they enact the entire MLPA it is going to cost every coastal community billions in fishing revenues, licensing fees, and tourism dollars. I understand the reasoning for the MLPA but I think it is going to too costly if the entire thing is pushed through.

I was an active sport fisherman for years and watched the fleets slowly move farther from the coast in search of good catches. I watched the depletion of the Bonito, Black and White Seabass, Sheaphead, Blue Sharks, Yellowtail and Albacore. Even the pelagic billfish have moved South. I finally quit fishing when all we could hope for was barracuda and barely legal calicos.

Since my return to diving I was shocked to see so little fish stocks except in protected areas. We need these protections if for no other reason than to give the stocks a chance to build so our grandkids can experience hooking a tuna up near shore.

 

[White Knight]

MY question - not directed at anyone in particular - is this:

What will the fishing/tourism industry do when there are no more fish to attract people/tourists/fishing boats?

Oh, I know - it won't be there generating any revenue for anyone.

The fierce opposition to responsible stewardship of our very fragile and limited natural resources (not just here, but around the planet) is not only disturbing, it is out right frightening. If we don't start operating in a resposible manner, (sure, it can hurt, but it will keep these areas, industries, and the ecosystem alive and kicking) we won't have a choice - there won't be any more and we will be S.O.L.

Short-sighted, short-term, views are irresponsible.

That's my 2 cents on the subject.

I agree with you analysis of what would happen if the ocean ran out of fish. Many people, myself included, simply think there are better ways to manage (and rebuild) fish biomass than completely closing down the most productive areas of the ocean to fishing of any kind.

 

[White Knight]

And, Skull, I think it will be too costly... costly to the ecosystems and future generations if we don't. This is too little, but hopefully not too late.

The BRTF meeting summarized things way too fast for my "mature" mind to comprehend everything they did (OK, so I was distracted Skyping with a lovely lady). I look forward to finding out the details in what they rushed through at the end of the meeting.

Personally, I thought the way modifications were made to the proposals by the BRTF were disturbing. After a year of process, members of the BRTF were able to modify MPAs and their intent on the spur of the moment? I find that a discredit to the long months of hard work by Stakeholders on all sides.

I also wonder how things might have gone differently if Caleyforneeya weren't in such dismal economic condition. I think this unfortunate fact affected what was supposed to be a science-based process.

Dr Bill, you seriously didn't think "science" was going to be used? This is California!