No Take Fishing Zone forming along Palos Verdes?

[Dyno Bill]

Perhaps another offering is to eliminate any fish or game take other than that taken with a spear gun or by hand as in lobster hunting. I don't know the answer, perhaps Dr Bill can offer some stats as to the effects of coastal runoff from pesticide and the likes. I wouldn't be surprised to hear the population explosion and intense building in So Cal has had a detrimental effect on the oceans near shore population. Just a thought.
Bill

 

[White Knight]

Bravo Dan!! You simply make too much sense. But you don't fit the agenda.....They don't want to "regulate" fishing, they want to close fishing.

 

[DwayneJ]

This just isn't the case anymore. I have a hard time believing that the majority of fishermen are doing so to feed themselves and their families as the primary objective.

There are any families that fish from our local piers and on the organized fishing boats who would go hungry if they could not fish. Its not sport for everyone.

 

[Codyjp]

There are any families that fish from our local piers and on the organized fishing boats who would go hungry if they could not fish. Its not sport for everyone.

Please re read what I wrote. What I said wasn't an ultimatum. I said that I doubt the majority of fishermen were doing it for survival. I also doubt that the cost of a fishing charter can offset the cost of the fish caught, but I might be wrong. The last fishing charter I went on cost about $80 if memory serves me right. I don't think the whole boat combined turned out $80 worth of fish, but that might just be because I was on a boat with crappy fisherman.

Would these new laws prevent these families from fishing off of the local piers? I haven't read the specifics but I'm going to guess that they don't include the piers. I would also imagine that if the waters surrounding piers were protected from boat fishing pressure the piers would become significantly more productive for these families.

As an aside a I grew up fishing for trout in Colorado. I returned nearly everything I caught since I was a 'sport fisherman.' There was nowhere better for sport fishing than the 'Goldwater' streams that were limited to only catch and release by lure or fly. It was brilliant from a sportsman standpoint. There was still plenty of areas that were great for catch and keep fishing, like just below the catch and release areas!

 

[spoolin01]

Here's a link to the North Coast proposal - the one where the BRTF took the stakeholder proposal (2XA) that best met the stated objectives according to the BRTF instructions, and added more protection - that shows roughly 50
% of the rockfish habitat (hard substrate) and essentially all of the important coastal headlands, except the Duxbury head where the fisherman made their stand, within closed areas.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/ipa_submaps.pdf
In the Central region, despite a very fishing-restrictive final proposal from the BRTF, the F&G Commission made up their own even more restrictive proposal, in contravention of the agreed process, after the Governor twisted their arms in the fall of the 2006 election year - why would he have done that? The RLFF (anti-fishing money) has spent $18M directly funding the MLPA process - how effective is that lobby money do you suppose? - and the many environmental groups supporting extreme closures continue to be powerful lobbying interests. How much have the rec fishermen put in? Big commercial interests (the kinds with lobby money) aren't much affected by the coastal no-fishing zones, at least in NorCal (I wouldn't be surprised if the push-back by fishing interests is stronger in SoCal than it was in the previous two regions - there's more commercial and big money hobby fishermen than up here). This is an assault on rec fishermen mostly.

Fish are an important - and readily renewable - source of essential protein. Seemingly ideal from a resource management point of view, and better than the alternatives now heavily relied upon. I don't know anyone who doesn't fish for the food it provides - codyjp, why did you abuse those trout if you weren't going to eat them? Would you rather see demand shift to the products of the less-selective mass fishing industries? That nativist dream of returning to the abundance of hundreds of years and billions of humans ago is not constructive in the current era - though the emotional appeal is undeniable. Fish stocks are going to be down, and in many cases will far farther - we're eating them and there are more of us every year - the question is how best to sustain maximum yield. Or is it how best to make a (...n even) big(ger) aquarium?

The hypothesis that MPAs provide sanctuary for otherwise vulnerable large fish that represent uniquely valuable breeding stock is compelling, and the point of the MLPA legislation was to test this out in a controlled scheme. It has since become a private-funding-driven vehicle for closing as much of the coastline as the political process can achieve, and the controlling interests are on record stating they don't care whether the testing part is funded or not, they want closures.

If you think that ecosystem integrity is important, why would you favor closing such a high proportion of habitat, concentrating effort in the remaining open marginal habitat? Isn't that likely to create more damage than just dialing back disseminated fishing pressure through use of seasons, bag limits, and size restrictions? Harvest or clear-cut?

 

[dpbishop]

While I like the idea of MPAs and very limited no take areas, and have seen the healthy reefs of the existing no take reserves, these areas simply make no sense for pelagic and migratory fish like yellowtail, whiteseabass, and halibut etc. For less or non-migratory species like rockfish and lobsters, to a certain extent, it would seem to make sense. But then why close the whole area to all methods of take for all species? Why not try a better management method? Like reducing bag limits, having slot limits on size, regulating the take methods better (see gill nets and whiteseabass for an excellant example).
Dan

The advantage of MPA's from an enforcement point of view, is they are easier to police. If you are fishing in an area where fishing is proscribed, you're breaking the law. You can monitor that from boats, from shore, probably from Google Earth. With slot and catch size limits you have to board boats or have monitors stationed at the piers. Who will fund a 1000% increase in staff size for the DF&G?

In thirty years of lobster diving I've been checked about 3 times. That tells you how inadequate current staffing levels to enforce limits.

 

[Dan Chua]

The advantage of MPA's from an enforcement point of view, is they are easier to police. If you are fishing in an area where fishing is proscribed, you're breaking the law. You can monitor that from boats, from shore, probably from Google Earth. With slot and catch size limits you have to board boats or have monitors stationed at the piers. Who will fund a 1000% increase in staff size for the DF&G?

In thirty years of lobster diving I've been checked about 3 times. That tells you how inadequate current staffing levels to enforce limits.

I totatlly agree with you about the staffing issue. But I'm not sure I agree with you about the MPAs surveilance. Are there going to be DFG boats stationed out at the MPAs 100% of the time? How can you tell what one dive boat is doing inside the MPA without boarding and checking anyways? I would think it would be cheaper to station one warden or small boat at each major harbor, or rotate through them, and check people as they come back to shore than it would be to run the DFG Cojo or Steelhead 24 hours a day around San Clemente Island and Catalina to make sure people aren't fishing in the MPAs. How about out at Pt. Conception, how will they survey that? By using the big DFG cats? That'll be cheap. DFG is not going to be able to enforce the MPAs with their current budget anyways.

And the issue isn't even about enforcement, it's about closing a large area of the ocean to all consumptive take. That's why the slot limits (which is only one managment tool) would be better, because they would target the affected species, not close a whole area. Why close of the East end of San Clemente Island to yellowtail fishing when you're trying to save rockfish?

In my experience most recreational fisherman want to do the right thing in the first place. Very similar to the duck hunters, who have done huge amounts of work in land stewardship etc. to make sure their favorite pastime is healthy and sustainable. Fisherman aren't on the same plane yet, but I think they can get there. Anyways, the poachers don't care where the boundry to the MPA is. They'll go in one way or another.