MLPA makes front page of LA Times

[jridg]

This is exactly my point - RESPONSIBLE stewardship - I eat fish - I don't fish for them myself - but they're tasty! Let's impose some appropriate limits, seasons, no-take zones that make sense! Let's impose a dive-park fee like Cozumel does - if you go out on a charter, you pay an extra 1 or 2 bucks that goes into the DFG coffers. The channels would be able to rake in tons from this idea alone! It's not rocket science, it simple common-freaking sense! Making an area where there are no fish to speak of a no-take zone is stupid - closing every single fishing area is also stupid. Actually making some common-sense decisions on limits/no-take/seasons - even if some see them as painful - makes sense - adding in some extra small fees for those OTHER than fishermen also makes sense! If you use the area, then let's put a small fee on that - I'm not even talking about shore diving - but maybe we should do that as well - a seasonal dive tag - no tag=no dive - perhaps with an exemption for students or some such. There are lots of revenue streams out there - the DFG just needs to use it's collective brain for half a minute to come up with some ideas!

 

[White Knight]

This is exactly my point - RESPONSIBLE stewardship - I eat fish - I don't fish for them myself - but they're tasty! Let's impose some appropriate limits, seasons, no-take zones that make sense! Let's impose a dive-park fee like Cozumel does - if you go out on a charter, you pay an extra 1 or 2 bucks that goes into the DFG coffers. The channels would be able to rake in tons from this idea alone! It's not rocket science, it simple common-freaking sense! Making an area where there are no fish to speak of a no-take zone is stupid - closing every single fishing area is also stupid. Actually making some common-sense decisions on limits/no-take/seasons - even if some see them as painful - makes sense - adding in some extra small fees for those OTHER than fishermen also makes sense! If you use the area, then let's put a small fee on that - I'm not even talking about shore diving - but maybe we should do that as well - a seasonal dive tag - no tag=no dive - perhaps with an exemption for students or some such. There are lots of revenue streams out there - the DFG just needs to use it's collective brain for half a minute to come up with some ideas!

You make perfect sense! I have argued this point in the past to no avail. The other side of your issue will argue that we have already tried the catch limits, etc., and it didn't work. I, of course, do not agree that appropriate fish catch limits and restrictions have--in deed--ever existed in the past and to argue so is simply a lie. Just like that same camp--after closing 85% of productive coastline habitat--will claim that they have only closed 15% (mixing in total ocean coastline most of which is mud) with productive reefs. Looking through the deception, there is a substantial camp of people that simply do not want anyone to fish and/or hunt--period. That is what we/you are up against. Of course, the few reefs that are left open along the coast are going to get decimated. Just as one might expect. Then they will be closed! After all, you don't think the war is over do you? This has been just another trun of the wheel, just a battle in a long war to a "no take" anywhere California State. In any case, I agree with you completely.

 

[Skull]

This is a no brainier and when it is all said and done the DFG will come hat in hand looking for general funds to replace the lost revenues from licensing ... but again do you think the Sierra Club will pitch in or the dive community with user fees? No they will just jack up the hunting and fishing licenses ...

 

[jridg]

The other thing is that in order to allow species to recover, the DFG will actually have to listen to appropriate science. There may be some years where certain species will have to become no-take simply for the survival of that species - remember, I am talking responsible stewardship - Just look at what is happening in the UK - their fish stocks have literally been decimated - thousands of fishermen could be permanently out of work because the fishing lobby has bullied the government into not reducing the catch limits in order for the stocks to recover - what will happen? They will ALL lost in the end. Sometimes it's going to hurt, but this way there will be a future......

The US Northwest saw this last year - wild salmon catch banned due to severely reduced stocks - a necessary measure in order to save the future stocks. Imposing more realistic limits can prevent such drastic measures.

 

[White Knight]

The other thing is that in order to allow species to recover, the DFG will actually have to listen to appropriate science. There may be some years where certain species will have to become no-take simply for the survival of that species - remember, I am talking responsible stewardship - Just look at what is happening in the UK - their fish stocks have literally been decimated - thousands of fishermen could be permanently out of work because the fishing lobby has bullied the government into not reducing the catch limits in order for the stocks to recover - what will happen? They will ALL lost in the end. Sometimes it's going to hurt, but this way there will be a future......

The US Northwest saw this last year - wild salmon catch banned due to severely reduced stocks - a necessary measure in order to save the future stocks. Imposing more realistic limits can prevent such drastic measures.

Again, I agree with you and Skull. But, also again, your opponents don't want "realistic limits" as a mechanism to rebuild fish populations. That would allow you to fish! Reducing catch limits or imposing temporary restrictions, as opposed to forever closed MLPA's, aren't even on the table for consideration. The goal isn't to find sustainable total recreational catch limits that would allow millions of taxpayers to enjoy an age old past time, the goal is to shut the ocean down to such activities in their entirety. I realize I must seem like a nut. But give it a few more years....you'll see. As I have also said, my golf game is going to get a whole lot better.

 

[Codyjp]

In Colorado they would add a couple dollars onto all sporting licenses to cover the expenses of S and R as well as F and G.

Citizens could also buy a card for a few bucks that would cover them in the event of them needing the services of search and rescue without later getting a bill.

Basically, it was an overall Land Use fee of some sort and it was fine. A few bucks for a yearly pass would probably work just fine, but what would they do about beach goers etc...?

 

[drbill]

I, for one, have never suggested that no one should be allowed to fish (my son is a fish hunter) and I have favored an annual tag fee for diving. However, for the most part it is not the underwater imager or recreational diver who has caused the decline in fish stocks.

 

[Skull]

..."for the most part it is not the underwater imager or recreational diver who has caused the decline in fish stocks"...

Something to ponder along those lines of reasoning why should those who solely chase pelagic's, or bill fish or fish the streams and lakes pay for a no take zone... yet never reap the benefits of those no take zones as imager and rec divers will. Why should they be the ones shouldering the burden of the costs for policing these areas? Also it is the underwater imager and recreational divers who will benefit the most ...btw me included ... yet not have to contribute a dime. Even though through user fees and licensing increases which inevitably will come, due to the drop off of rec, commercial and out of state licensing losses the fishermen will be forced to contribute more.

We all in California benefit from the current fishing industry, through licensing fees, sales tax, local equipment mfg such as rods and reels, charter boat fees, hotel room taxes ...etc ... these revenue streams will be impacted by this decision. Course how much will be seen but this is not a insulted bubble.

I'm torn because a side of me saw how overfishing and pollution decimated the Great Lakes, its fishing and surrounding water sheds. It has begun to recover after decades of trial and error. I certainly don't want that to happen to the left coast of America ... but I also know that there is going to be significant fiscal damage to communities tied to the fishing industry that could be spared the hardships if a metered approach is applied to this problem. Not to mention the additional pressure on the unprotected fishing reefs which will bare the brunt of these no take areas.

I reminds me of the fight over water in the central valley .... the farmers are being punished for a variety of reasons ... some self induced, and then everyone is crying cause we got 12% unemployment. Never underestimate the ability of humans to derail their own train ...

 

[drbill]

..."for the most part it is not the underwater imager or recreational diver who has caused the decline in fish stocks"...

Something to ponder along those lines of reasoning why should those who solely chase pelagic's, or bill fish or fish the streams and lakes pay for a no take zone... yet never reap the benefits of those no take zones as imager and rec divers will. Why should they be the ones shouldering the burden of the costs for policing these areas? Also it is the underwater imager and recreational divers who will benefit the most ...btw me included ... yet not have to contribute a dime.

The first part of that paragraph is one reason why I strongly urged that the new SMRs suggested for Catalina NOT be extended to the 3-mile limit, but to a much distance seaward since I felt it was unfair for anglers going after pelagics.

On the underlined part, looking at it from my perspective I don't see why those whose right to experience healthy underwater ecosystems has been taken away by decades of fishing should have to pay for the restoration of fish stocks decimated largely by others. However, I have no problem with instituting an annual diving tag fee in our State's waters.

 

[Skull]

The first part of that paragraph is one reason why I strongly urged that the new SMRs suggested for Catalina NOT be extended to the 3-mile limit, but to a much distance seaward since I felt it was unfair for anglers going after pelagics.

On the underlined part, looking at it from my perspective I don't see why those whose right to experience healthy underwater ecosystems has been taken away by decades of fishing should have to pay for the restoration of fish stocks decimated largely by others. However, I have no problem with instituting an annual diving tag fee in our State's waters.

Funny thing coming from me (Skull) asking folks to pay more in taxes(fees) ... the world must be coming to an end ... he he he