MLPA makes front page of LA Times

[White Knight]

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.

Looking at the underlined part...It doesn't seem fair that someone "new to fishing" should have to pay for crimes committed by past generations either. And as already stated, it doesn't seem fair that a "lake trout" recreational fisherman should have to pay to upkeep the MLPA's either.

 

[jridg]

I don't think it's a point of who caused what - it's a point of how do we fix it. Making certain that there are fish stocks in the future to catch, photograph, video, simply watch, etc. is all of our responsibility. My main point was that if we lose revenue due to a decline in licensing, let's tap other un-tapped revenue streams.

As I have said, I like tasty fish, but I am far more interested in preserving the ecosystem than I am in eating parts of it. People need to leave their egos at the door and talk to each other like civilized beings.

At some point we will either make some sensible changes, or they will be made for us. The latter will be far more painful and cause far more heart-ache and economic/ecological damage than anything proposed to this point.

 

[LACounty4806]

Looking at the underlined part...It doesn't seem fair that someone "new to fishing" should have to pay for crimes committed by past generations either. And as already stated, it doesn't seem fair that a "lake trout" recreational fisherman should have to pay to upkeep the MLPA's either.

The nearshore waters of California are the property of all Californians and fishing is a responsibility, not a privilege. That holds true for inland waters as well. If you intend to utilize the waters of California, then you've bought into them all. You can't be selective when invoking the state constitution for fishing rights. If you buy into the laws of the state, then it doesn't matter where you fish. You accepted not just the privilege but the responsibility as well

 

[Skull]

The nearshore waters of California are the property of all Californians and fishing is a responsibility, not a privilege. That holds true for inland waters as well. If you intend to utilize the waters of California, then you've bought into them all. You can't be selective when invoking the state constitution for fishing rights. If you buy into the laws of the state, then it doesn't matter where you fish. You accepted not just the privilege but the responsibility as well

Exactly .. it's nice to see another person who would accept a yearly diving license/tag/stamp and fees for the privilege to dive in any/all California waters...

 

[Skull]

I'm thinking in the interest of sincerity, fairness and to all ecologically mindful folks a yearly dive stamp for $75.00 /yr would be reasonable. Out of state divers wishing to visit our reefs could contribute say a three day pass for $41.00 or a 7 day for $50.00 and if they wish they can purchase a yearly for the full $75.00. Thats as cheap as SeaWorld.. and more fun ...it's interactive on a personal level. This would augment the DFG's revenues from fishing and hunting and ensure proper enforcement and complaince to the safe and effective policing of our reefs.

 

[White Knight]

The nearshore waters of California are the property of all Californians and fishing is a responsibility, not a privilege. That holds true for inland waters as well. If you intend to utilize the waters of California, then you've bought into them all. You can't be selective when invoking the state constitution for fishing rights. If you buy into the laws of the state, then it doesn't matter where you fish. You accepted not just the privilege but the responsibility as well

First, it is very selective to saddle recreational fishermen with the sole cost to protect areas of water that cannot be fished. Second, to fish the ocean I needed to buy a salt water enhancement to my license? Perhaps people in Los Angeles don't have to? (Not understanding why you suggest lake and river only users should have to fund my ocean activites) Next, if the ocean belongs to all Californians, then all Californians can pay for it! That said, as it now stands less than 1% of our citizens pay over 50% of all the state income taxes and 70% of all Californians pay "zero" state income taxes. My point being that so far my state has saddled "me" with taxes and fees that go well beyond "my fair share" already. Now, I also have the sole responsibility (speaking as a receational fisherman) of funding "no take" areas of the ocean. At least when I pay a fee at a toll bridge, I do get to drive over the bridge! In such case, I don't mind paying the fee. This insanity has me paying the toll for a bridge that "no one can drive over--only in California!" A program that was brought into existence by "non recreational fishermen." I agree with others, I think everyone should have to pay $50 to $100 a year to use the ocean--scuba, free dive, fish, boat, sail, kyak, swim, drive by, live by, take a walk by, float, smell, etc.

 

[jridg]

I'm thinking in the interest of sincerity, fairness and to all ecologically mindful folks a yearly dive stamp for $75.00 /yr would be reasonable. Out of state divers wishing to visit our reefs could contribute say a three day pass for $41.00 or a 7 day for $50.00 and if they wish they can purchase a yearly for the full $75.00. Thats as cheap as SeaWorld.. and more fun ...it's interactive on a personal level. This would augment the DFG's revenues from fishing and hunting and ensure proper enforcement and complaince to the safe and effective policing of our reefs.

I know I'm splitting hairs here - but I think these are a little steep. My opinion (I know, it's not worth a damn anyway) is that $50 for a yearly state-wide stamp would be more than adequate. I think the 1-day should be more like $5 and a three day and seven day $10 and $15 respectively. This is a 'minor' addition to your dive trip and would do quite a lot to help add to the budget of the DFG. Now, if we could only guarantee the money would actually go to the DFG........

 

[Skull]

I know I'm splitting hairs here - but I think these are a little steep. My opinion (I know, it's not worth a damn anyway) is that $50 for a yearly state-wide stamp would be more than adequate. I think the 1-day should be more like $5 and a three day and seven day $10 and $15 respectively. This is a 'minor' addition to your dive trip and would do quite a lot to help add to the budget of the DFG. Now, if we could only guarantee the money would actually go to the DFG........

I could definitely live with that ... similar to DFG fishing fees California Department of Fish & Game Fishing Fees & Descriptions

 

[drbill]

Is that what in-state fishing licenses with an ocean stamp cost these days? It's been decades since I bought a fishing license.

I do know non-take divers who actually buy a fishing license each year to contribute to state management.

An annual fee for all users of the ocean... certainly an interesting concept. I'd probably propose a scaled fee based on the level of negative impact on the ocean environment. For example, beach combers might pay the least and poachers would pay with their lives... er, I mean big bucks (through fines).

 

[Skull]

Is that what in-state fishing licenses with an ocean stamp cost these days? It's been decades since I bought a fishing license.

I do know non-take divers who actually buy a fishing license each year to contribute to state management.

An annual fee for all users of the ocean... certainly an interesting concept. I'd probably propose a scaled fee based on the level of negative impact on the ocean environment. For example, beach combers might pay the least and poachers would pay with their lives... er, I mean big bucks (through fines).

Again drbill even I can be persuaded to accept a tax or a fee ...if it is the correct cause.