Home Tournaments Calendar Weather Merchandise Sponsors

Go Back   Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum > United States Geographical Locations > California Spearfishing > California Fisheries Regulations and Science (MLPA & MPA)

California Fisheries Regulations and Science (MLPA & MPA) Here is a dedicated forum for the extremely important MLPA & MPA process

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-21-2009, 01:50 PM   #31
Seacidal
Registered User
 
Seacidal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,229
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

This is a complex and delicate set of issues. The scope of habitat under consideration should be incorporated into any discussion of the extent of MPAs. There are a lot of factors and policies involved. It's not going to be easy to reach agreement, so any strength that can be derived from the law and the underlying legislative intent could prove to be essential.
__________________
Moderators have deleted, closed or relocated 74 posts by this user.


Seacidal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 11:50 PM   #32
tmaas
Registered User
 
tmaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 345
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

All,
Yesterday the rubber finally did hit the road. The morning was spent going over MPA design.

One important thing that we accomplished was applying to the Science Advisory Team (SAT)for the Level of Protection for the ACTIVITY spearing of coastal pelagics (yt, wsb, bonito and possibly halibut.) By asking for this from the SAT, we are establishing this activity as a credible allowable method of take within the Conservation and Park varieties of MPA. We all have made a good point on how selective spearfishing is, so we are hopeful for a "high level of protection" designation.

The navy through the Department of Defense will preempt the entire MPA process off Camp Pendleton, San Clemente Island and San Nicholas.
So for now, these areas are not under very active consideration. In the end, the Feds will tell us if and where they will allow reserves.
This is how Eric and I read their mixed messages.

The real meat of the day began when each member presented their confidential (to remain only in of 3 stakeholder groups) reserve proposals to other members of the group. It is clear that the environmental folks had a strategy and that was to make every important place we dive a complete reserve. Some of the reserves they proposed were HUGE. In fairness, the proposals were couched in phrases such as, "this is what we would like, but we know it is only a starting point for negotiation." Unfortunately not all the data layers have been provided to the stakeholders, for example the Ecotrust data is only now coming on line, so the enviro folks did not have any indication “of heavily fished areas” and of course their ignorance was quite evident.

After consultation Eric and I feel now is the time to start drawing up our own reserves. So now we challenge you to help us with this task. Here are the areas we want you to propose reserves—start with your favorite area and for simplicity we will make these reserves--complete no-take areas:
• All of Pt. LaJolla down to the entrance of San Diego Bay (your reserve is to be within this area not of course the entire area).
• Dana Point North through Orange County,
• Palos Verdes, Malibu (from the east end of Santa Monica Bay all the way up to Pt. Dume,
• Isla Vista,
• Refugio/El Capitan areas.
• For Catalina, you probably should start by expanding one of 3 reserves already on the island—The Wrigley center at the Isthmus, the area in front of Avalon and Farnsworth Bank.

Here is how we suggest you draw up the reserves:
• Only take one area, the one that you are most interested in
• Make two reserves, one 3 miles long and another 6 miles long (these are the minimum and preferred sizes respectively) Use Marine Map, Google Earth or a paper chart that you convert to pdf format for us.
• Boundaries should be straight out to sea and they should be on the whole lat/lon degree if possible, or otherwise using readily identifiable land marks. The boundaries automatically extend to 3 miles from shore, so don’t worry about drawing them exactly.

Marine Map is a very powerful tool. You may require some tutorial on its use but that is available. Go to (http://www.marinemap.org/marinemap). A user name and password is required to develop MPA proposals using this tool; thus, you will need to contact MLPA Initiative staff at help@lists.marinemap.org. If you are not interested in using marine map, you can send us proposal any way you can using the above criteria.

Eric and I will assemble your thoughts and offer feedback to the group on your ideas.You can email each of us with questions: tmaas@west.net seazen@gte.net

Now is the time to start placing our own lines in the sand.
Don't worry about all the goal justification stuff required with a reserve proposal, Eric and I will take care of that.

Respectfully, Terry and Eric

Please also see the thread below where we can discuss maps

http://spearboard.com/showthread.php...069#post876069
tmaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 12:10 AM   #33
rojodiablo
My spawn kills on....
 
rojodiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Age: 53
Posts: 8,572
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Mike and I have a pretty good idea where to take this. We talked about it a bit at the SAT meeting, and these are already drawn. There is no way we want to put this in open forums, so PM Mnguy, Zenspearo or myself for info.
__________________
Safety is but an illusion; Every grain of sand was once a mountain. Every speck of dust..... was once a man. Nothing can stop this, in time. So use the time you have well..... you won't get it back.
rojodiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 12:23 AM   #34
tmaas
Registered User
 
tmaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 345
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Quote:
Originally Posted by rojodiablo View Post
Mike and I have a pretty good idea where to take this. We talked about it a bit at the SAT meeting, and these are already drawn. There is no way we want to put this in open forums, so PM Mnguy, Zenspearo or myself for info.

Paul,
Please send your proposals to either me or Eric, that's why we gave our private emails. Thanks for your help and support!
Terry
tmaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 01:01 AM   #35
rojodiablo
My spawn kills on....
 
rojodiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Age: 53
Posts: 8,572
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Absolutely Terry. We will work on the second part of it, the part after the main proposal is vetted by you guys. You know what that one is, and we have been talking, and kicking around the other part of the proposal. I am waiting for more input from of all places...the Neptunes and Fathomiers. HUH!! Imagine that!!!
__________________
Safety is but an illusion; Every grain of sand was once a mountain. Every speck of dust..... was once a man. Nothing can stop this, in time. So use the time you have well..... you won't get it back.
rojodiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 09:21 AM   #36
Wind_in_his_hair
Registered User
 
Wind_in_his_hair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,439
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

If anyone is interested in talking about PV please send me an email.

Mike
Wind_in_his_hair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 01:23 PM   #37
rojodiablo
My spawn kills on....
 
rojodiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Age: 53
Posts: 8,572
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladvr View Post
If anyone is interested in talking about PV please send me an email.

Mike
Email sent.
__________________
Safety is but an illusion; Every grain of sand was once a mountain. Every speck of dust..... was once a man. Nothing can stop this, in time. So use the time you have well..... you won't get it back.
rojodiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 11:24 AM   #38
tmaas
Registered User
 
tmaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 345
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Stake holder’s log 2/10/09

This was the second day of our first of three mapping sessions. Basically, our environmental counterparts asked for the moon by taking huge swaths of our best locations. The fishermen are offering a much more modest array of reserves, which we hope will meet the needs of the MLPA law. We will present our initial ideas at the March 2-3 meeting in Oxnard. This will be an open meeting and everyone will be able to see the first salvos. In addition, the fishermen’s external proposals, if any, will be presented at that time. All of these proposals will be fed to the SAT, where they will be evaluated and given “point-ranking” for their meeting the SAT guidelines for habitat protection, replication and distance guidelines. There will be two more iterations before the final several plans are submitted to the state in the late summer.

We had several very important revelations at the meeting:

1. Our request for a high-level-of-protection for the activity of spearing coastal pelagics will likely be granted. I know this does not help the folks spearing other species of bottom-dwelling fish, nor does it help lobster fishermen, but it does offer us the possibility of some limited fishing in areas that might be otherwise closed.
2. The San Clemente and San Nicholas Islands proposals by the DOD, which is likely to be their final and only compromise and which will probably be accepted by the state has profound implications for the MLPA and for divers in general. Basically almost all of the Western end of the island will be closed by the implementation of a so-called “Safety Zone.” You are familiar with the Wilson Cove closure, which will now extend 3-miles offshore. The second huge closure is the “Swat 1” closure, which will close the North West end of the island and includes Castle rock and the “9-fathom reef”, both of which are excellent areas for spearfishing. The closure will extend out for 3 miles and represent permanent closures in the name of the Navy and national defense. The Coast Guard will be given the task of patrolling these areas. It is unclear now if the Coast Guard will even allow transit in these areas, especially Swat 1, which will be receiving small-arms fire from the island.
3. The “alpha” area at San Nicholas is also going into permanent reserve status. The DOD is saying, “These, and only these reserves are our contribution to the MLPA and you can take them or leave them, but we are offering nothing more.”
4. The ecotrust data (which has just come on line for use in the RSG meetings) is truly valuable. In short, we now have data to back up our claims as to the value we place on certain areas. Thanks to all who hung in there to fill out the long and tedious survey – it’s invaluable!

Eric has been voted as one of two spokespersons for his group and he will be presenting one of the arrays for his group. Obviously, he has made a big impression on his group for them to be willing to trust him with their plan presentation. Way to go Eric!

Terry Maas and Eric Kett

PS, You might be interested in what the editor of Western Outdoor News had to say about the group he attended. While he was asked to abide by the groundrules, he refused and publishes this: http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=4...&t=STAKEHOLDER

++++++++++++++++++++

Also, here is the ECOTRUST response table from Divers, Kayakers and Private Boaters. Very interesting the types of fish targeted by each group. Please note that the table does not fomat so that you need to read the numbers in sequence, for example for wsbas (white seabass) there were 22 responses from Los Angeles County and 16 from Orange County... for a total of 90 responses.



DIVE
Fishery Los Angeles County Orange County San Diego County Santa Barbara County Ventura County Total
wsbas 22 16 33 11 8 90
lobs 18 23 28 10 7 86
chal 15 19 32 9 8 83
ytail 15 14 44 3 7 83
clbas 15 10 27 11 5 68
shphd 5 5 12 1 2 25
scalp 3 6 7 1 4 21
rckf 1 3 7 5 3 19
dor 1 4 11 2 0 18
snbas 3 6 8 0 1 18
clms 2 3 8 2 0 15
crkr 2 3 8 2 0 15
barc 2 0 11 0 1 14
bon 2 1 9 0 0 12

KAYAK
Fishery Los Angeles County Orange County San Diego County Santa Barbara County Ventura County Total
clbas 31 24 38 5 7 105
chal 27 22 34 5 9 97
wsbas 16 17 43 0 7 83
ytail 11 13 52 0 1 77
snbas 15 15 19 1 3 53
lobs 7 12 15 2 3 39
tshk 6 7 15 2 2 32
barc 7 7 15 0 2 31
rckf 6 4 16 0 5 31
bon 6 6 18 0 0 30
shphd 2 8 12 0 3 25
mckl 2 3 13 0 3 21
sqd 1 2 10 0 1 14
rcrb 2 0 4 0 1 7

PRIVATE VESSEL
Fishery Los Angeles County Oceanside Orange County San Diego County Santa Barbara County Ventura County Total
clbas 42 11 47 91 7 6 204
ytail 34 7 41 83 2 5 172
chal 30 7 33 69 9 7 155
wsbas 33 8 43 55 6 6 151
snbas 25 4 31 47 2 0 109
barc 23 3 21 44 2 4 97
rckf 13 3 20 45 5 4 90
lobs 16 4 20 34 1 1 76
bon 8 2 20 34 0 2 66
tshk 8 6 13 30 2 1 60
mckl 5 1 9 18 0 1 34
shphd 8 1 2 12 0 0 23
crkr 2 0 5 13 0 1 21
srfp 1 0 1 6 0 0 8
tmaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 11:36 AM   #39
Seacidal
Registered User
 
Seacidal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,229
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Thanks for the report Terry.

We are very fortunate to have you and Eric representing us in this process. The experience, credibility and respect you bring to the process is a huge asset.

Congratulations Eric! You're the perfect candidate to be making this presentation.

I realize this is a big commitment of time and effort for both of you and I appreciate your willingness to stick it out and do the best job possible. Not to mention putting up with all the headaches that go along with it!

Thank you!
Chip

P.S. I have to admit that it is a bit frustrating when the agency has (in general) been doing a good job of making the process available to the public through web simulcasts of proceedings. But these meetings were available only to those who could physically attend. This significantly reduces the public's ability to observe the process. Even if public comment isn't allowed, the ability to watch even one of the three break-out groups would seem a valuable addition to maintaining a transparent process. Oh well. It is what it is.
__________________
Moderators have deleted, closed or relocated 74 posts by this user.



Last edited by Seacidal; 02-13-2009 at 11:56 AM.
Seacidal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 11:47 AM   #40
rojodiablo
My spawn kills on....
 
rojodiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Age: 53
Posts: 8,572
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Terry, the Fathomiers meeting went very well, and I will be giving the recommendations back to the group. We had 100% unanimous agreement to the locations that have been proposed for us. I was able to explain many of the facets of this shit colored jewel to the divers ( several Spearboard members came!!) and once we really looked at the locations, and went through the reality of what would limit acceptable locations, talked about the goals and objectives, everyone was in unison- it was nice to see. Thanks for everything, Paul.
__________________
Safety is but an illusion; Every grain of sand was once a mountain. Every speck of dust..... was once a man. Nothing can stop this, in time. So use the time you have well..... you won't get it back.
rojodiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 11:58 AM   #41
saltierdog
proper use of a bait tank
 
saltierdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manhattan Beach, So-Cal
Age: 57
Posts: 2,100
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Thanks terry
Paul R Presented all the information to a packed room of members last night
We are in agreement with the proposals
Though no one was very happy with the navy and the closure area on San Clemente
__________________
joe
KEEPING ROCKY POINT OPEN

Just Say No to GREENWASHING

Men stumble over the truth from time to time,
but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.

-- Winston Churchill
saltierdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 11:59 AM   #42
tmaas
Registered User
 
tmaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 345
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Quote:
Originally Posted by rojodiablo View Post
Terry, the Fathomiers meeting went very well, and I will be giving the recommendations back to the group.
Thanks Paul, Your commitment to the process has been phenomenal. Thanks for the outreach and Eric and I look forward to the Fathomieres suggestions.
Terry
tmaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 12:15 PM   #43
Wind_in_his_hair
Registered User
 
Wind_in_his_hair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,439
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Terry,
Could you please send me any updated proposals for PV?

Thanks,
Mike
Wind_in_his_hair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 01:56 PM   #44
Sparkie
Registered User
 
Sparkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Bering Sea
Posts: 346
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

From WON editor Rich Holland's article:

". . .there are roughly 100 folks who are right now devoting a majority of their time each day to closing large sections of our ocean to fishing. Forever."

Aren't the MPAs required to undergo a review process a minimum of every five years to assess the effectiveness/failure of each MPA? From what I've heard, the MPAs are not supposed to be set in stone, rather they can be modified or removed if they fail to meet their goals.
Sparkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2009, 02:02 PM   #45
tmaas
Registered User
 
tmaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ventura California
Posts: 345
Re: So. Cal.Marine Protection Life Act-- Stakeholder Log

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkie View Post
Aren't the MPAs required to undergo a review process a minimum of every five years to assess the effectiveness/failure of each MPA? From what I've heard, the MPAs are not supposed to be set in stone, rather they can be modified or removed if they fail to meet their goals.
The Channel Islands reserves just underwent their first "adaptive management review" and the State recommended a no-change to them. The fact of the matter is that it takes over 10 years to fully assess the effects of reserves. Some effects are not apparent for over 15 years. It is my belief that once a reserve is designated it will not be changed (perhaps added to only) in our lifetime. My humble opinion.

Terry Maas
tmaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 AM.


The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Social Media Forum Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2014 Spearboard.com