Pt Arena, Fisk Mill, Stewart's Point, N. Salt Point - Closed to Spearfishing in '09?

[Dave Edlund]

The latest round of implementing the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) for the North-Central area of California (the area from Pigeon Point north to Point Arena) is in high gear and the stakeholders have come up with four main sets of Marine Protected Area maps for discussion. The public will be allowed to make comments on them and ultimately the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) will be responsible for developing a preferred alternative that will be given to the four DFG Commissioners later this year for a vote.

Here are the four plans:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/nccrsg-dprops.asp#dp3

The next month is your chance to impact these proposals. Don't wake up in a year and realize that your favorite spearfishing area was shut down without your voice being heard. The train is leaving the station and I don't have to tell you who is driving it. Unfortunately, it is not Randy Fry. In order for us to be most effective, we need to focus our lobbying power on a very few areas where the anti-fishing interests have been most unreasonable to us. Many of you know I am not against MPA's and I actually believe they can create a lot of good. But there is always the the issue of how many MPA's where should they be located. Just remember, not all the science behind MPA's is black and white. It is evolving.

Having looked at all four of these plans in detail, I think the biggest area of concern for most NORCAL spearfishing divers surrounds Salt Point in Sonoma County. That is my personal opinion but you may see differently. The most negative plan to spearfishing interests is plan #4. This plan would create a large no-take Reserve called Salt Point Reserve that shuts down all the area north of Gerstle Cove for a long way. It would shut down a prime spearfishing area just north of Gerstle Cove (have you ever been there Justin Smith?)and also all of Fisk Mill Cove and beyond. By shutting this area down, it would concentrate more of our Sonoma County fishing on southern Gerstle Cove and Ocean Cove which could be a bad thing. I think allowing us to only paddle south from Gerstle Cove launch which is a waste of this key kayak access point. If there were many non-fishing divers anxious to go to a new Salt Point Reserve, that would be one thing, but anyone with experience knows most sightseeing divers find little interest in this area as the vis is poor. This is no Point Lobos or Cannery Row! I would like to see us fight for full Salt Point access! What do you think?

So, I propose that we decide which of these four plans we support and which we think should be modified. So how important are these spearfishing areas below to you? I am personally most interested in fighting for #1 and 2, but like I said before, everyone has their opinion. The one thing I do know is that we can not fight for everything. We need to be selective or we will lose. We are just one interest group.

1) Northern Salt Point (plan 4 shuts this down)
2) Fisk Mill Cove (plan 4 shuts this down)
3) Northern Point Arena (plan 4 has the most southerly boundary (closest to the Point Arena pier) when compared to the other 3 plans)
4) Parts of Sea Ranch

Please share your views on these plans and come with me to one of the upcoming DFG Public Comment Workshops meeting (February 4-6th) at various Northern CA locations. Let's decide what suggestions we would like to make to the BRTF and DFG Commissioners.

In the meantime, I will be talking to spearfishing supporters like Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), our other fishing friends, as many MLPA stakeholders as appropriate, DFG staff and eventually DFG Commissioners. Once we have a final position for our group, we will write a letters to the BRTF and Commissioners. This could be done by the Cencal Skindivers, maybe Norcal Skindivers, Tritons and more. We also should get the support of the Spearfishing Industry Alliance (SIA) which is interested in supporting spearfishing access.

[David Deman]

We had planned on talking about it at the meeting on Saturday, Dave. I was hoping you'd be there and educate us more on the process and how the different plans affect us. You can count on the Tritons making our presence known and defending our rights. I've already talked to Kevin Sakuda in short about this, and I really want to do everything that I can to help.

[Dave Edlund]

I will be at the Triton meeting this Saturday and would love to talk about this along with the upcoming Carl Krupansky Charity Pole Spear Tournament. Carl wants to help the Cambodian orphanage where his daughter is working as a volunteer this year. The kids are all "aids" impacted and all the money raised will be hugely appreciated. More details to be posted to Spearboard this week.

[David Deman]

I'm really excited about you being there, Dave. You can have as much time as you want to talk about the process, and you'll have plenty of attentive ears. I encourage anyone interested in hearing what Dave has to say to attend!

[Tino Bernazzani]

Dammit Dave,
Just when my nightly glass of wine is making me sleepy I read this post.
Now I can't sleep and feel sick to my stomach.
I have reviewed these maps/plans when they first came out and every time I look at them they make me upset. Each and every Map/Plan!
The simple fact is we have 4 limited options.
How are we going to come up with a unified decision without beating each other up?
From the way it looks, these so called plans could cause a lot of unrest and result in others deciding our fate, regardless of our efforts.
I know you have studied this information in great detail and trust your decision when it comes to deciding the diving community’s best Plans to be submitted.
I guess it’s a good time to start planning for a boat.
Thanks for all your help Dave and I look forward to talking to you about this more on Saturday at the meeting.

[Mateo]

Are these areas going to closed to spearffishing but remain opeb for abalone diving?

[Dave Edlund]

Each plan has recommended "allowed or disallowed uses". It is listed in the "description" section of each plan. If you take "Saunders Inshore Reef SMCA" as an example and compare the four plans, you will see that spearfishing for rockfish is not allowed in all four plans. Abalone harvest is allowed in three of the plans and shore rock fishing is allowed in two of the four plans. Many will say rockfish populations are in worse shape than abalone, so they need greater protection in general. Since we lacked a spearfishing diver in the overall group of stakeholders, who is going to fight for us in the MPA's where spearfishing should be allowed? We need to improve our represenation for the upcoming SOCAL MLPA process.

[Lino]

This is bad.
I don't know if I can do anything about it but if I can help let me know.

[bigeyedave]

You can help and we need everyone to help. It is coming down to crunch time. I want to thank everyone who participated in Round 1 by sending e-mails and letters. Your input was heard and was very effective. Soon the final decisions are going to be made. The last chance for public input into the final map proposals which will be widdled down from 5 to one which will then become LAW is Feb 4-6 as below. You don't need to attend every meeting but PLEASE try to attend ONE. If you don't your favorite areas may be closed forever.
Here is a list of times and places to help us keep what we love.

Public Workshops
Upcoming Workshops

Monday, February 4, 2008
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Sheraton Sonoma County, Petaluma
745 Baywood Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954

Tuesday, February 5, 2008
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Gualala Art Center
46501 Gualala Road
Gualala, CA 95455

Wednesday, February 6, 2008
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
105 Rockaway Beach Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
It is up to us.
Thanks.
Dave

[offduty]

Dave. You can have as much time as you want to talk about the process

:eek::eek: :eek:
We better keep Dave's beer consumption down.:talker: ;)

Just teasing Dave, I'm looking forward to seeing you again and appreciate everything you do for our sport/obsession.

[Lino]

You can help and we need everyone to help. It is coming down to crunch time. I want to thank everyone who participated in Round 1 by sending e-mails and letters. Your input was heard and was very effective. Soon the final decisions are going to be made. The last chance for public input into the final map proposals which will be widdled down from 5 to one which will then become LAW is Feb 4-6 as below. You don't need to attend every meeting but PLEASE try to attend ONE. If you don't your favorite areas may be closed forever.
Here is a list of times and places to help us keep what we love.

Public Workshops
Upcoming Workshops

Monday, February 4, 2008
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Sheraton Sonoma County, Petaluma
745 Baywood Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954

Tuesday, February 5, 2008
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Gualala Art Center
46501 Gualala Road
Gualala, CA 95455

Wednesday, February 6, 2008
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
105 Rockaway Beach Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
It is up to us.
Thanks.
Dave

Great information I cannot make any of these meetings because my regular work schedule is 2 to 10:30 PM; But this is a good time for a meeting for the larger percentage of spearos that work regular shifts.
I hope some of them will make the drive and fight for our rights.

[Tino Bernazzani]

I will be at the Petaluma Meeting and will try to attend the meeting in Pacifica.
I hope to see lots of familiar faces there.

[David Deman]

Put in a good word for all of us, Tino. I wish I could make it up there.

[Dave Edlund]

Here are the three meetings in February where you can give verbal comments on the MLPA plans. Not many will be able to make it to Gualala, but hopefully we can get spearfishing divers to attend the Petaluma and Pacifica meetings on February 5th and 6th to speak on the most important issues for our community.


WHAT: Public Workshop (public input on draft MPA proposals)
WHEN: February 4, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: Sheraton Sonoma County
745 Baywood Drive
Petaluma, CA 94954

WHAT: Public Workshop (public input on draft MPA proposals)
WHEN: February 5, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: Gualala Arts Center
46501 Gualala Road
Gualala, CA 95455

WHAT: Public Workshop (public input on draft MPA proposals)
WHEN: February 6, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: Best Western Lighthouse Hotel
105 Rockaway Beach Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044

[Seacidal]

Dave,
I'm a bit weighed down with some other fishery management matters, but definitely want to do everything possible to assist in getting our voices (of reason) heard and properly considered.

I might be traveling on the meeting dates, but would like to coordinate with you and ensure that we get some letters and voices together for the meetings.

I'd like to talk with you about what types of alliances we may be able to draw upon for support.

Thanks for all of your time and efforts on these matters. It's a thankless job, but I thank you anyway! I look forward to contributing in any way possible.

Chip Bissell
Seacidal

[Noyo Jim]

A big problem with these "public hearings" is you get only 60-90 seconds to speak. I highly recommend getting your comments in writing and submitting them to the public comment email address for the MLPA staff - mlpacomments@resources.ca.gov.

[zenspearo]

A big problem with these "public hearings" is you get only 60-90 seconds to speak. I highly recommend getting your comments in writing and submitting them to the public comment email address for the MLPA staff - mlpacomments@resources.ca.gov.

Absolutely agree on the writing.

However, I find that although most public hearings (even for mundane things like city hall or zoning meetings) limit the speaking time for an individual member of the public, a steady stream of spearkers all hammering in a consistent message can have a dramatic impact.

Even though the speaking time may be limited, it would be real bad for us if the anti-spearing groups have multiple speakers, with none speaking for the spearos.

[Dave Edlund]

To influence the marine park designs so that our spearfishing interests are weighed in, we should get representative spearfishing divers to speak out at all three public workshops in early February where MLPA stakeholders will listen to our views. We need our messages to be consistent in order to be effective. If we ask for the world without good reasons, we will get nothing. I have talked to a number of you the past few days and most everyone has rallied around "access" as our big issue and trying to keep the most popular "access points" from being shut down. The no. 1 area we are fighting at his time is Salt Point/Fisk Mill Cove. If you can come and be one of the 1 minute speakers at one of the three MLPA workshops, PM me. We need you!

The dates and locations are:

February 4th - Petaluma - 6 PM
February 5th - Gualala - 6 PM
February 6th - Pacifica - 6 PM

Then there is the March 18-19th MLPA Stakeholder meeting in San Rafael that we will need attendees.

If we can get speakers to each represent our different dive clubs or organizations, that would be ideal. Right now, I am trying to get at least one speaker from Cencal Skindivers, Monterey Tritons, Nor Cal Skindivers, Lockheed Scuba Knights, East Bay Barnacles, San Jose Flipper Dippers, Retro-Subs and Richmond Pelicans. We should also have support from Recreational Fishing Alliance, Spearfishing Industry Alliance and the general Spearboard community (AKA Club Spearboard).

Call me at 408-356-4622 or PM me if you will volunteer! THANKS!

[seahunter]

Dave thanks for all you have done already.

The salt point to horseshoe point is where I do 95% of my diving. I dive there every weekend that is safe and if it is too rough to dive one week I make up for it by diving multiple days in a row the following week. I dive at least 50 days a year in that stretch of coast line. I have dove most of the coast line between Fort Ross reef (pedotti's) and the northern boundary of salt point. The area they are proposing to close (salt point to balck point) is the best for spear fishing. It has the best visibility (farthest from the Russian river's sediment), It has one of the most protected coves in that stretch (fiskmill), It has excellent access due to salt point state park, and it contains some of the best reefs that are shallow enough for ab diving and spearfishing.

proposal 2 looks like it is the best for us. We would be pretty much unaffected. The Yellow block in front of salt point closes it to commercial fishing, but keeps it open for sport fishing. So that actually might benefit us. Puss it keeps sea ranch open too.

Proposal 3 is not too bad. It closes sea ranch, but allows sport fishing in salt point.

Proposal 4 is terrible and proposal 1 is almost as bad as 4. I am strongly against both of them.

[el_pedorro]

Proposal 4 is terrible and proposal 1 is almost as bad as 4. I am strongly against both of them.

Everything else he said I agree with, too. Over the years most of my diving has been in the Salt Point to Black Point area that these two proposals would make off limits. It would be a horrible loss.

More than half of this stretch (Richardson's Ranch) is so inaccessible its practically a marine wildlife protected area already. The only way to reach it is a long boat trip up an exposed lee shore from Timber or Ocean Coves.

So I vote also for backing Proposal 2. (I don't like Proposal 3 because I like diving Sea Ranch, but if it came down to a choice between Salt Point or Sea Ranch, I'd back 3.)

Shouldn't we be coming to a consensus?

[SeaZen]

Hello Divers of the North Coast,
I can feel for your situation. I tried for years to fight off the MPA's here at the Channel Islands, it was only when I came to the realization that MPA's are going to happen we have no choice, but we can influence or adjust the boundarys of the MPA's to make them workable. We are one of the largest usergroups of the ocean - the recreational fisherperson (this group incudes all methods of take rod & reel, spears, etc.). I have some tips I would like to add to your efforts;
- Get as many speakers at each meeting as you can
- Coordinate with each other so as to cover as many points as you can while covering each thoroughy, your time is limited as an individual, but when viewed collectively you have made lots of very solid arguments well supported
- Write your speech down, practice your delivery, carry your notes with you to the podium.

Some good points to cover are;
- Location of MPA's creating an unsafe situation, for example if the MPA extends North from a cove and not south, this forces fishing uses south, making returning to the cove at the end of your day more hazardous.
- When possible site specific areas and locations for boundarys to be placed or moved. Most of the people who will be making the decision or who oppose your fishing interests have never been there so moving it a half mile might mean nothing to them, but to you and I it can mean the difference between going home hungry or happy!

I would guess that there are many on spearboard that could assist with editing or writing your speech, post your ideas and see what comes forth.

Best regards,
Capt. Kett

[e-schal3]

If you compare all options ,#2 seems the least intrusive, however thet are all very intusive, they are getting to spot that I have used for 25 years and the ab population has not diminished, how ever if I'm not there, the poachers will be and who is going to watch them, with 20 parks closing, and a budget short fall of 40 with a b billion dollars? Go Arnold, Eric Schaller Santa Rosa

[Kale]

Feb.4th 6pm in Petaluma is actually a reasonable time and place for a meeting! I know there are a lot of divers in that area so I hope you guys show up in force.

[David Deman]

Everything else he said I agree with, too. Over the years most of my diving has been in the Salt Point to Black Point area that these two proposals would make off limits. It would be a horrible loss.

More than half of this stretch (Richardson's Ranch) is so inaccessible its practically a marine wildlife protected area already. The only way to reach it is a long boat trip up an exposed lee shore from Timber or Ocean Coves.

So I vote also for backing Proposal 2. (I don't like Proposal 3 because I like diving Sea Ranch, but if it came down to a choice between Salt Point or Sea Ranch, I'd back 3.)

Shouldn't we be coming to a consensus?

I think that you're gonna see a lot more spearos in favor of number 3 over number 2 because of the easier access to Salt Point. We talked about this at our meeting last week, and althought there is a very healthy ab population at Sea Ranch, limited access makes it less desireable.

I know that as a club, we've come to a general concensus that number 2 is the way to go. But if it came down to going with number 2 as opposed to number 1 or 4, 2 would definetely be the way to go, although I can't see that being a scenario.

[el_pedorro]

...But if it came down to going with number 2 as opposed to number 1 or 4, 2 would definetely be the way to go, although I can't see that being a scenario.

What sort of scenarios do you envision?
Does anyone know who might be backing 1 or 4, and why?
Do they have a website?

[David Deman]

While I'm not not smart enough to know specifics, I'm sure Dave Edlund can give us names. I know that there are a lot of enviro friendly groups out there that would like to see us never harvest another fish. It's the same battle that was fought against the underwater photographers from Pacific Grove. There weren't enough of us to counter what they had to say, and we almost lost the ability to hold competitions completely in the area. But thanks to the hard work of the few, we were able to maintain the vast majority of our rights. Let's not let the same thing happen up there.

[seahunter]

I can't make the upcoming MPA meetings. I am about to leave for a 9 day trip to baja.

I sent the following email to MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov IF you can't make the meetings please send at least an email. A written letter is even better. I was really impressed that so many of you sent in letters on our last go around. Our opposition tried to play it off as if they were just form emails. So if you have the time an original letter, not a cut and paste of someone else's letter, will be the best and hopefully take some wind out of their sails. I know none of us here are excited about new MPAs in our backyard, but Proposal 2 is not that bad. When writing your letter try stay professional and not too heated. The first line in my letter where I say I understand the need for the MLPA is a catch more flies with honey type of thing...

"I have a degree in fisheries biology from Humboldt state and I understand the need for the MLPA. I am also a sport diver who frequently dives the Sonoma coast line. I try to dive at least once a week as long as the ocean is calm enough to dive. If I can't dive one week I make up for it by diving multiple days during the following week. I spend the majority of my free time and money abalone diving or spearfishing in Salt Point state park. As you know there are two MPA proposals that will include a large potion of Salt Point state park (from Gerstle cove to black point) as a state marine reserve. Myself and may sport divers will be seriously impacted if an SMR is placed on this stretch of coast line. Salt point state park is an excellent area for sport diving for the following reasons:
1.) The land on this stretch of coast line is owned by the state parks system it and allows for multiple public access points.
2.) There are 2 areas to launch kayaks in this stretch of coastline. In addition to kayaks small boats can be launched at Gerstle Cove.
3.) We generally have strong northern winds in the afternoon on our coastline. Therefore it is important for safety reasons to head north in the morning so we can return safely to our launch point once the afternoon winds and wind waves build. If the 7 miles north of Gerstle Cove are made into an SMR then the Gerstle Cove launch point will be useless for kayakers and small boat operators since we would be forced to head south to fish which would be very dangerous.
4.) The unique shape of Fisk Mill Cove provides protection from a northwest swell. Therefore Fisk Mill Cove is often the safest place to dive on the Sonoma coast. Last year there were nine dive related fatalities in our area. This sport does not need to become more dangerous by limiting our safe diving locations.

As a sport diver I strongly support draft proposal 2 (jd). This proposal would hardly impact sport divers on the Sonoma coast while still providing the level of environmental protection that the MLPA has promised. Draft proposal 3 (tc) would not be ideal for sport divers, however it is not nearly as bad as draft proposal 1 (ec) and Draft Proposal 4 (JC). I am firmly against draft proposal 1 (ec) and Draft Proposal 4 (JC). IF either of these proposals were to pass they would drastically impact the sport diving community.

Justin

I thought since the MPA meetings are coming up I would start a new thread. Sorry for the double post.

[bigeyedave]

Thanks a lot Justin. Everything you guys can do will help. It is important to know that you don't have to support a full proposal. It is important to focus on an area. Like the Salt Point State Park area. As far as Salt Point goes number 2 (JD) is the best proposal but there may be things in there that you don't like. Like the giant SMR at Sea Ranch or example. You can write your letter in support of one part of a proposal and in disagreement with another part. Just wanted to let you know how the process was going to go. They aren't going to choose one of the 5 as "The proposal". They will modify the final map depending on many factors, like input from the public, and the proposals are just templates from different groups to help generate a final map. Hope that helps and hope to see you guys at one of the upcoming meetings. This will probably be all over by the end of March. I don't know when it will become law. Maybe Dave Edlund can comment on that if he knows. Remember the meetings really are your last opportunity to comment on it.
Dave

[el_pedorro]

The meeting in Petaluma last night was sort of loud and boisterous, with seating for about eighty for a crowd numbering over a hundred.

After a somewhat lengthy round of introductions of the people involved (stakeholders, facilitators, DFG wardens, scientists, etc.), and explanations of the goals of the MLPA process, we were finally broken into six distinct groups according to our principle interest areas, and given a chance to speak our opinions.

Although the organizers did their best to let people be heard, it was too noisy to make much out of what was said, and there were too many conflicting interests to arrive at any kind of consensus.

It was impressed on us to fill out the "Comments" form that was provided, so that the committee would have concrete public comments to help them decide which of the proposals to go with, and whether or not these proposals should be amended.

For those who are headed to the next two meetings, be sure to fill out the forms, and it'd be best to have your thoughts organized (written) ahead of time.

[Tino Bernazzani]

The meeting was just like what Doug described above.
I was happy I went and felt there was a genuine effort to hear your concerns. The "Comments" form was a little impersonal, but practical within that environment.
Here are some things I took from the meeting and my talks with a few of the stake holders. One was Samantha Murray of the Ocean Conservancy.

-Commercial fisherman are perceived to be easier to deal with than the recreational fishing/diving community (Thanks Coast Side :rolleyes:). :(
-The latest scientific review of the 4 proposed plans is not in favor of plan 2 or 3 due to the size of the overall reserve areas. :(
-No where in the MLPA laws is it written that the stake holders group has to consider "Indirect Economic Impact". :(
-There is hope for true negotiations with those that seem to appose us. :thumps:

For some reason, it seems to me that we should be focusing a real effort in talking with the science advisory team members. I would imagine it will be there views that will be looked upon as top priority over any other interest. If they come back saying that the master plan will not work due to the small(er) size of the reserve areas, no other concern will matter. With only two plans that meet those criteria it will be the lesser of two unacceptable offers (plan 1 or 4).
Either way it was nice to see Brian Ishida, Kevin Sekuda, Tom Krebbs, and 7 of the finest Cadets the Maritime Academy has to offer (Ryan, Brandon, Roy, and crew). Thanks everybody for making the journey and I hope the Pacifica meeting has even more people in attendance. We need the numbers and this could be our final chance at the bargaining table.

[bigeyedave]

Glad to meet you guys and thanks for showing. I was frustrated by the meeting. I know the forms they provided were adequate for putting in your 2 cents but I was hoping to be able have a more interactive and dynamic meeting where people could speak and you could hear the different opinions being stated. I felt the format they tried to use was not appropriate. "Break out groups" just can't function with that many people. I could write a comment on-line or at home and send it in. Just my 2 cents. Hopefully Pacifica will go more smoothly.
Dave

[SpearMax]

For some reason, it seems to me that we should be focusing a real effort in talking with the science advisory team members. I would imagine it will be there views that will be looked upon as top priority over any other interest.

Exactly Tino!

That has been my approach for over a year now. Some people don't like it, but as will be shown in numerous examples around the country this strategy can help our cause. I know Dave Edlund and Chip Bissell have been doing doing that on several levels. Dave has been frustrated with some of the "bigger is better" theories of some scientists, but discourse and interaction is still useful. Having the respect of and being able to interact intelligently with the scientists is definitely a good thing to do. Last night, I was in a unique face-to-face scoping meeting with one of the top scientific guys at the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and we were discussing the benefits of Spearfishing to which he wholeheartedly agreed based on his own experience. I definitely still think we should strongly oppose bad science or missing data. We should do that with vigor and passion, but under the approach regulators are using now across the country, they use the "best available science" and we would be remiss to not try and improve that science by interacting with scientists. After all, we can be their additional sets of eyes under the water. Just my nickle thoughts, Tony

[DarenDeath]

I plan on going to the Pacifica meeting. Anyone else?

[e-schal3]

Went to the meeting on Monday and was excited to see Sonoma County Abalone Network had a proposal that was in keeping with what needs to be done.
I was not there for the whole meeting, but what I did gleen was,
They won't spend money or time to find who is going to loose money,
They won't spend money or time to find who is going to loose access,
They want this MLPA proccess to get done, but they are held by guidelines that have to be followed,
What bothers me is what goes on in the smoked filled rooms that are not seen and heard.
I am going to go with SCAN because they have some one has been involved through out this proccess. That's just me, you need to get yourselves going too, cause there coming to visit you next and we need to stick together.
Lot of good people on this board who know what to do, find them listen to them and put in your say or its gone. Eric S Santa Rosa

[Dave Edlund]

I am going to tonight's meeting in Pacifica. Some of the spearfishing supporters going tonight include the NOR CAL Skindivers (Northern Cal's oldest skindiving club), LERA (Lockheed's dive club), Cencal Skindivers, Underwater Society of America, and the Monterey Bay Tritons. We are all supporting keeping Salt Point State Park open. I have read Sonoma County Abalone Networks SCAN) proposal and support it. They have common interests to the majority of divers on this list. We will be providing written comments, but one our key objectives tonight is to talk to some of the 24 stakeholders in this process. I will be particularly talking to the non-consumptives (non-fishermen) as I would like them to fully understand the needs of "access" for recreational fishermen. If you come, make sure you write comments and try to talk to at least one non-consumptive stakeholder. They should be formally announced during the meeting.

[Tino Bernazzani]

Dave,
Did you give any thought to seeing if we can get some of the plans changed a bit?
From my talks with Samantha, it seems like plan 2 and 3 may not even be considered if they do not meet the scientific advisory board’s minimums for reserve areas.
If that’s the case, we may be doing a lot of work for nothing.
From what I gathered the non-fish friendly stake holders do not care about access or any kind of residual effects on the surrounding communities.
My fear is that the two plans that head before the deciding committee will be one that we want and one that the enviro's want. Then when the scientific committee gives their suggestions we will be SOL if they do not think the reserve areas for our plan are large enough to be effective.
After much research of this topic and the stakeholders I talked to, this could be a major backfire of our efforts.
Good luck tonight.
I cannot make it due to family stuff. Keep up the fight.
Thanks again for all your efforts.

[DarenDeath]

I understood that plans 1 and 3 had a better chance of acceptance because they had a more mixed group of contributers. They aren't final yet though. I think that #3 is the best chance of compromise for us spearos. I mostly dive the areas on that plan, that would be hardly affected as a recreational consumer. I know that it sucks to lose a favorite spot. We have to give some to get some.

[Dave Edlund]

There were lots of fishermen at tonights MLPA workshop at Pacifica with plenty of representation from the dive community. We had spearborders (Darren Death, etc), retrosubs, scuba knights, cencal skindivers, USOA and more.

To answer Tino's questions, all four main MPA network plans will likely be modified in the coming weeks. There is plently of hope that the spearfishing community will get a reasonable shake in this process.! I talked to fishermen working on plan #2 that were working hard on modifications to meet Science Advisory Team (SAT) requirements (adding more protected areas no doubt). All network MPA plans must meet the SAT guidelines to be considered as an "acceptable" proposal, so I am willing to bet that all plans will do so in the next couple of months. The fishermen's main plan #2 will eventually meet the minimum level of protections required by the SAT and the leading conservation proposal #4 will easily exceed the protections required by the SAT. Right now there are two proposals, numbers 1 and 3 that are hybrid proposals that were designed by both conservationists and fishermen. These are compromise proposals to some extent. I think it is likely that the BRTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force), will not select the fishermen's proposal as we do not have the political strenght of the "conservation" groups. That is why we need to influence the hybrid/compromise and conservation proposals too. The BRTF I believe would love to approve a proposal like #3 which has some bi-partisan support if it meets SAT requirements. The bottomline is spearfishing divers should try to influence the winning proposal. The conservation groups have the upper hand in this process as they have deeper pockets, but they will compromise a bit and we need to be there to maximize ocean "access" for our community of recreational divers.

[Noyo Jim]

I think it is likely that the BRTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force), will not select the fishermen's proposal as we do not have the political strenght of the "conservation" groups. That is why we need to influence the hybrid/compromise and conservation proposals too.

Dave,

At the last regional stakeholder group meeting, Ken Wiseman (Exec. Director of the MLPA Initiative) made a very telling comment.

He said, "Unlike the central coast phase of the MLPA, this time there is no Fisherman's Proposal. That's a positive development."

We came so close to passing the Fishermen's Proposal last time, they changed the rules to make sure it didn't happen again. That's why we asked our reps on the stakeholder group (Ken Jones, Bill Bernard) not to propose a whole network. They've been pretty effective in representing us by modifying the "hybrid" proposals.

[FishFighter]

Jim, I know you are looking into the deepwater fishing (for low impacted rockfish)as an alternative for next years season. Is this something that the MPA/MLPA panel is discussing? Also being that the deepwater fishery is an "experiment," what will happen with the data in the future? Is this something that we can use to re-open certain near-shore areas that may be closed soon?

[Noyo Jim]

FF,

The deepwater rockfish trips are a different deal. The trips will occur offshore beyond 150 fathoms - all in federal waters. The data we collect will be submitted to the Pacific Fishery Management Council for future management decisions. They could open that chilipepper fishery for all recreational boats. The experiment (exempted fishery permit) is limited to charter vessels for now. By taking some of the pressure off the nearshore stocks, it would benefit everyone.

Since the MLPA is a habitat protection program, they are unlikely to change the boundaries or regulations for these closures any time soon.

[FishFighter]

Thanks Jim!!

[bigeyedave]

Here is a letter posted by Bob Franko on Coastside. You should all read it.
18 February, 2008

Secretary Mike Chrisman
California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth St., Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814


Dear Mr. Chrisman:

When Fish & Game Director Ryan Broddrick and Deputy Director Greg Hurner asked me to get involved in the MLPA process because of Coastside’s moderate approach and demonstrated conservation values, they also told me that lessons had been learned from the Central Coast process. I honestly believed that erring on the side of Conservation, protecting recreational fishing, and letting science be our guide was the correct course. I went forward with these goals in mind; contacting other leaders of my community, and the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans was born.

Speaking on behalf of the Coastside Fishing Club and its 14000 members in this study region, I couldn’t feel more abused than I do at this moment. I have made speeches up and down the coast, have written articles, and have been often quoted; always saying we must endorse the process and proceed with our stated goals.

We have worked very hard to produce, and were about ready to unveil, the latest revision to our MPA proposal. In conservation value and economic value it would have topped them all. I believe it would have even gotten some environmental support. It was the sweet spot on the bat that everyone was looking for. So what happened? We could not get beyond the bias in the SAT or the BRTF. I will give you two examples where bias and not science is driving the process, and which are now making it impossible to successfully achieve the balance that we have always sought.

The first and most important is that salmon trolling in waters less than 50 meters was assigned a Level of Protection of only Moderate High. It should be noted that salmon are not a “species likely to benefit” from an MPA because they transit through it and there will be others that will enter the MPA even if one should be caught; therefore there is no impact by removing an occasional salmon. But the issue that SAT member Dr. Carr raised was not one of removal of salmon, but one of excessive rockfish by-catch while salmon trolling. He caught everyone that fishes by surprise, citing a workshop he had participated in where fisherman said they had by-catch of rockfish inside 50 meters. The salmon community was stunned because we know that just is not correct.

Subsequently the two specific anglers Dr. Carr referred to both sent letters to the SAT and BRTF saying that their comments had been taken out of context and had been completely misrepresented. Then party boat captains showed up with log books in hand and testified that their rockfish by-catch is less than 1%. Coastside asked for, and received DFG data for the most recent six years of salmon trolling in the month of May (when rockfish is not open); and analyzed it to determine the by-catch rate that would be expected in an MPA where take of rockfish was prohibited. That data clearly showed a by-catch rate of less that 0.2%. This did not even take into consideration that in shallow water rockfish can be released unharmed. Then Marine Game Warden Lt. Dennis McKiver, who has been the boarding officer in this region for the last 18 years, wrote a letter testifying that he has never seen more than 1% by-catch rates – and that was inside 10 fathoms (20 meters). I testified, as a man that spent most of his adult life on the water, as to what the by-catch was; and volunteered to poll our membership if they wanted numbers from a thousand anglers. NOAA spoke up, indicating their commercial data showed 1% by-catch rates. We have talked with everyone from Director of F&G John McCamman to the vice president of Oceana - all salmon fishermen - and all said never, or very rarely, was there any rockfish by-catch while trolling for salmon. Not one shred of scientific data was ever produced to indicate that significant rockfish by-catch occurred while salmon trolling. In the end the most respected Scientist on the SAT, Dr. Ray Hilborn, did an analysis and determined that even assuming a worst case scenario using by-catch rates 50 times the documented rates, there would still be no measurable difference to the ecosystem – and called for establishing the Level of Protection for salmon trolling at all depths to be Very High.

Yet even in the face of this data, testimony, and analysis the SAT refused to raise the level to High – and now the BRTF has made their policy decision to affirm the earlier Moderate High rating, a rating that excludes salmon fishing from most areas. They made this decision not because the data shows an impact from salmon trolling, but in spite of the data that shows it does not have impact. And then they said because other “unknown” data might show an impact we must be precautionary. The MLPA requires the use of “best readily available science,” not speculation or, in the words of Dr. Mark Carr, “feeling” or “precaution” as was stated by Meg Caldwell. We no longer have a recreational fishing option available with this ruling made contrary to the scientific evidence.

My second example has to do with Dr Gaines’ testimony to the BRTF on modeling. He showed three conditions: one under sustainable management, and two with different degrees of unsustainable management. Under the sustainable management scenario there was little difference between the various proposals regarding the abundance of rockfish, but there was an economic disparity between the more and less restrictive proposals. However that economic disparity was neutralized or even reversed under the two unsustainable conditions – while showing that even the most restrictive of the MPA concepts could not attain the rockfish abundances achieved with sustainable management. To her credit, the DFG representative spoke up and said the State does not manage for unsustainable conditions. Dan Wolford, a sitting PFMC council member, testified that by law the Council must manage to achieve a sustainable fishery: so the two unsustainable cases are completely unreasonable and not realistic – calling them lose-lose cases, unlike Dr. Gaines, who somehow managed to portray the worst of these as a win-win, and torpedoing any possibility of using the only credible option!

That’s two examples of violating or at least ignoring the law apparently to achieve a pre-determined outcome.

Here’s the worse part. In my world, a man’s word is everything. I keep my word and I won’t do business with someone who does otherwise. Before and during the BRTF meeting, we were misled. We were told by your staff that “everything is going to be all right.” We, and everyone attending the hearing, were told by Chair Golding that the salmon matter would be taken up early so that all members of the BRTF would be present for this important vote. However, this important vote was not taken up until the last of the meeting after a task force member had departed. You can’t expect us to have trust in a process when the person in charge can’t be trusted.

Speaking only for Coastside, I now question why we and other consumptive users should stay involved at this process. I see no opportunity to work toward our original objectives. I only see our presence as validating a process that appears set on a specific predetermined outcome.


Bob Franko, Chairman


Coastside Fishing Club

Copies to
Dan Dunmoyer, Governor’s Office
Fish and Game Commissioners
John McCamman, Director, Department of Fish and Game
Ken Wiseman, MLPA Executive Director
Blue Ribbon Task Force Members

--------------------
Thanks for your club support. Our fishery is too important not to care.

http://www.keepamericafishing.org

Bob Franko

They are waiting for a reply.
Dave

[seahunter]

Dave, that is very bad news!

What is the next step for us and coastside?

[bigeyedave]

This is an email I recieved back today from John Ugoretz of DFG.

Dear Mr. Sereni,

Perhaps the most important fact, that seems to be overlooked, is that while the Task Force did assign a level of "Moderate/High" to areas where salmon trolling shallower than 50 meters is allowed, they also specifically stated "The BRTF recognizes that proposals will also likely include MPAs with "moderate-high" levels of protection. The BRTF will seriously consider such proposals, and their socio-economic consequences, in the evaluation process."

So, there is nothing that says that areas which allow shallow salmon trolling will not be counted. The SAT analysis, as it always has, will include areas with "Moderate/High" level of protection.

With regards to the presentation on models, I would point out that a sub-team of the SAT, which included Dr. Hilborn, agreed to use the examples of future exploitation level. This is how the models are designed and how they work. While the State strives to manage fisheries at a sustainable level, the majority of species we manage remain unassessed. In other words, we must make assumptions about how well we are managing. It is reasonable to provide information on both a sustainable and unsustainable level of future take.

Finally, and most important in my mind, the Task Force will provide their advice and recommendations to the Fish and Game Commission, the final decision maker in this process. The Commission will certainly weigh any advice they receive in light of all information presented.

Thank you for your interest,

John

John Ugoretz
Habitat Conservation Program Manager, Marine Region
California Department of Fish and Game
1933 Cliff Drive, Suite 9
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
Office (805) 893-5822
Cell - (805) 338-3905
jugoretz@dfg.ca.gov
www.dfg.ca.gov/marine
I'm note sure what comes next. Maybe Edlund can shed some light on it for us.
Dave

[bigeyedave]

Coastside is rallying to pack the house for the upcoming meetings in April. We need to be there too. If you can walk, be there. Bring you mother, father, sister girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever. Just be there. Here is the date and location.
Tuesday-Wednesday, April 22-23, 2008
Four Points by Sheraton
1010 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903

This better be standing room only with about 500 people in the halls and outside. I'll post more details as I get them.
Dave

[bigeyedave]

Here is an update from yesterdays meeting regarding the MPA status. Read carefully. pay special attention to the bold. Sean White is a stakeholder and this info is right from the horses mouth. It will impact EVERYONE who abalone dives.




MLPA Call to Duty 3/4!!!!!!
« on: Today at 06:04:04 AM » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spent Monday night and all day yesterday back in the MLPA pit of despair. The five proposals have been narrowed to 3. Here's what happened:

1) Xa (Bodega fishermans proposal) and JD or "2" (coastsides proposal) were merged
2) Proposals 1 (Emerald) and Proposal 3 (Turquoise) were merged
3) Proposal 4 (JC or the NRDC) is alone

Group 1 adopted a whole new proposal prepared by Ben at CS for the next round. I is IMHO a terrific product, that should score very well with the SAT and economically and we need to support it.

We need to continue to oppose the Group 3 NRDC proposal unless something changes there. They do seemed genuinely concerned with the current scope of there economic impacts.

Group 2 spent the better part of the afternoon comparing Emerald and Turqs. Lots of commonality and no major issues except for Emeralds HUGE CLOSURE AT SALT POINT.

To my surprise it is not the conservationists that have been pushing this...its the PARK. The STATE PARK REPRESENTATIVE OPENLY STATED THAT THEY WANT TO CLOSE MOST OF SALT POINT SO FOLKS CAN "HAVE A PT. LOBOS EXPERIENCE" AT SALT POINT. WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!!!!

MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS BAD IDEA. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE ABALONE REP., A CLOSURE AT SP OF THIS SIZE WILL AFFECT THE FISHERY ENOUGH THAT THE SEASON AND BAG LIMIT FOR THE WHOLE COAST WILL NEED TO BE CHANGED....ARE YOU LISTENING PEOPLE!!!! TIME TO TELL THE STATE PARK THAT WE WANT ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC LAND WE PAID FOR!!!!!

WRITE LETTERS TO DFG, BUT IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU WRITE YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TOO...THIS IS A BIG DEAL FOLKS!!!!

Dave

[bigeyedave]

Here is the latest propsal work from Ben Sleeter at Coastside.
Here is a link that has the most recent version of the proposal we have all been working on. Please take a look and provide comments. To see what the other proposals look like you will need to visit the following link to the MLPA Website and look under the North Central Coast proposals.

Proposal 2 Maps/Description
http://web.mac.com/bsleeter/Coastside_Docs/Photos.html

www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa

In the attached PDF you will see State Marine Reserves (red areas) and State Marine Conservation Areas (blue areas). Below is a list of the proposed regulations for each of the blue areas. Each applies to commercial and recreational.

Pt Arena: Slamon trolling
Black Point: Salmon trolling
Bodega Head: Salmon trolling, Dungeness crab, squid, wetfish
Pt Reyes: Salmon trolling, Dungeness crab, squid, wetfish
Fitzgerald: Salmon trolling, Dungeness crab, squid, wetfish
SE Farallon: Salmon trolling

We make our final proposals next week at the RSG meeting. I hope to see some of you there. Right now I can tell you we have an excellent proposal that performs very well on the SAT evaluation. Not only that but we believe we have designed it in such a way so at to keep socioeconomic impacts to a minimum.

--------------------
Ben Sleeter
Chinook 30 - "Pacific Legend"

[bigeyedave]

Here is the latest and the greatest from the meetings Tue and Wed. This post is off Coastside but seems to be true and consistant across the board. Hope you find it helpful.
Dave

Before today’s morning MLPA Session, I had the opportunity to speak with Melissa Miller-Henson. Melissa was very pleasant and professional, as usual. I have always gotten the feeling that she is very empathetic to our struggle and the challenges we have encountered, during this process. Additionally, I think that she respects our team, their professionalism and their due diligence regarding the MLPA.

Melissa commented that the majority of letters received were from Coastside Members and Abalone Divers.

When I asked Melissa about the importance of "original" letters of support vs. DF&G "computer generated" letters, what she told me came as no surprise. As I have stated before, there is a distinct difference (in their eyes) between the amount of water that an original letter holds as opposed to the DF&G’s "click", "click", "click".............."done!", "that was easy" shortcuts. I know that many will argue that it shouldn't make any difference, conveyance of support should not be belittled by the means it was received AND I agree! However, whether or not I agree is not important. Unfortunately, the reality is that the level of significance is determined by the addressee, not us!!!! I also, addressed the “trap” that DF&G has set so that when we use their link we are penalized for it needs to be addressed. She agreed and informed me that she has brought it to their attention.

Melissa stated the importance of making an impassioned plea for their support. That is what they are looking for, not some "generic brand” letter supporting “Proposal 2AX”. She further stated that if they had thousands of one sentence letters saying: “I support “Proposal 2XA” that they were more prone to, possibly, not allow public comment, but rather ask how many here, for public comment, support “Proposal 2XA”? If more personal letters are received they are more prone to continue to allow public comment.

I purposely used "Proposal 2" as an example of what they are, most assuredly, not looking for. There is no longer a "Proposal 2". It is now "Proposal 2XA". Herein lays, another problem that she conveyed to me. We have people writing letters in support of proposals that are no longer in play! They have either been rejected or have merged with other proposals, creating a new proposal. She says it is hard to take some of these letters seriously when they are supporting proposals that have fallen to the wayside three or four months earlier.

In closing, she emphasized the importance of making a "personal", impassioned plea in support of our preferred proposal (2XA). Melissa suggested, perhaps, a story about your first fishing trip with your dad or your children. As corny as it may sound, it creates a more intimate portrayal of the experience. Then cite the reason(s) why you support “Proposal 2AX”. Eg. I support “Proposal 2AX” because it is a well conceived, logical plan, based on sound science that will be easy to enforce AND is paramount to the safety of small boaters.

I apologize for rambling and the late post, but I hope this will help make a difference.

Thanks.

--------------------
Ned McIver
aka MacDaddy

[Noyo Jim]

Ned,

You are right, the public input has been tremendous. The personal letters count more than the mass-generated email campaigns from this side or that. The next round of decisions will be made in April by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. After that, the California Fish & Game Commission takes over. The real decisions will be made that this summer.

I hope everyone will take a long look at the alternative MLPA maps they will be posting this week.

[bigeyedave]

Jim,
I know what you are saying is true, but my understanding is that the lines on the maps are done. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe a proposal will be chosen in April to go to the DFG. It is open for public comment and we can comment on what exists on paper, but no shapes will be changed from those that currently exist. I just think that should be clear to people.
Dave

[Noyo Jim]

Jim,
I know what you are saying is true, but my understanding is that the lines on the maps are done. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe a proposal will be chosen in April to go to the DFG. It is open for public comment and we can comment on what exists on paper, but no shapes will be changed from those that currently exist. I just think that should be clear to people.
Dave

The F&G Commission can make any shapes it wants, and did in the last phase in Central California. It's true that the regional stakeholder group is pretty much done its work, and that the Blue Ribbon Task Force will pick a preferred alternative. Last time they picked and chose from all the different alternatives to make a new alternative... They will probably forward all the alternatives to the Fish & Game Commission. The DFG will also comment on the feasibility of the proposals. This is not over until the Commission votes on it later this year.

[Kale]

The F&G Commission can make any shapes it wants, and did in the last phase in Central California. It's true that the regional stakeholder group is pretty much done its work, and that the Blue Ribbon Task Force will pick a preferred alternative. Last time they picked and chose from all the different alternatives to make a new alternative... They will probably forward all the alternatives to the Fish & Game Commission. The DFG will also comment on the feasibility of the proposals. This is not over until the Commission votes on it later this year.

Thanks Jim,
It's quite a lengthy, undemocratic process. Thankfully the biggest closures were kept in unaccessible areas here on the central coast. I hope the commission seriously considers access on the north coast. Thanks again.
Kale

[bigeyedave]

PLEASE READ – BRTF Meeting Message

I need you to read this and act accordingly. I realize we are of many personalities and most fisherman are independent souls that would rather cut a trail than follow a path, but in this case we must be on-message and together.

My frustration up to now is second to none. I am so frustrated over some of the things I have seen, that if things go poorly I will be happy to join you in blowing up this process. But at this meeting, we are still in the fight – and we must act in a professional and orderly manner. Anything less will do us more harm than good. We must demonstrate our passion, NOT through disruption, but through positive contribution. I am counting on you to represent us in a positive and constructive light.

I am so proud of this membership and the fishing community in general, from north to south, for their involvement under our leadership. I have seen a complete emergence of secondary leadership among the Coastside membership to help with this exasperating process.

Before I go any further with some talking points there are two things that are critical. The first is you must show up at this BRTF meeting, and second is trust your leaders: Ben Sleeter, Dan Wolford, Paul Pierce, and Sean White. They will take the lead, not just for you, but for the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (the PSO) in general. We are not going into this un-armed. We have been in constant contact with the decision makers either by phone or private meeting, and as dissatisfied I am with the process up until now we must stay with the plan.

I am going to let Dan finish this letter with suggestions, but a point I think needs to be made is that our proposal 2-XA is the sweet spot on the bat. I have been told by the Governor, the Director of F&G, the Secretary of Resources, and others that they are looking for this: a balance that achieves the necessary conservation, with protection for public access to our ocean. I said to all of them let us provide a conservation option where everyone feels some pain, but all can accept. And the next day’s headline would read “California comes together and sets the example for the world.” This can be a huge political win for politicians, the environment, and fisherman.

I am afraid that what the BRTF will try to do is give us 2-XA with modifications. We must point out that is unacceptable. They must put it forward to the commission AS IS and we will make our case there if they want that headline.

I will be watching you guys live on SLOSPAN from Canada where I’m working on your property getting it ready, so good luck and I will be there in spirit. Listen to, and follow the lead of Dan and Ben.

Bob Franko



OK guys – here are the talking points we’ve been stressing – some of these should make it into your statements. The BRTF members have stressed over and over again how important personalizing these messages are – use some of them IN your own statement. Keep it brief – you will probably only get one or two minutes.

We believe the following points strongly argue that Proposal 2-XA should be selected as the preferred alternative:



Proposal 2-XA is a well balanced and strong conservation proposal that does not have significant adverse socioeconomic impacts on commercial and/or recreational fishermen and divers.
Proposal 2-XA achieves the scientific and conservation goals of the MLPA.
Proposal 2-XA has a strong backbone of marine reserves with seven core areas where a State Marine Reserve serves as the foundation of the MPA cluster.
Proposal 2-XA places an emphasis on total ecosystem protection with an emphasis on the “High” level of protection.
Proposal 2-XA places an emphasis on contributing to a network of MPAs in the "preferred" size range.
Proposal 2-XA meets Department of Fish and Game feasibility guidelines.
Proposal 2-XA is enforceable and has broad public support.
Proposal 2-XA has the support of a vast array of commercial and recreational fishermen/women and divers.
Proposal 2-XA and/or its individual components, has the support of many in the conservation community.


Contrasting Proposal 2-XA with other proposals demonstrates many significant differences, particularly with regard to socioeconomic impacts to the recreational fishing sector and the communities we support and depend on:



Proposal 4 would essentially prohibit recreational bottom fishing at Duxbury Reef – the most important bottom fishing area north of Point Conception and severely impact recreational fishing out of San Francisco Bay.
Proposal 4 creates an MPA between Half Moon Bay and Ano Nuevo (in the Central Coast study area) which is not needed to meet SAT conservation guidance, with devastating impacts to Pillar Point harbor and users.
Proposal 2-XA has good solutions at Bodega Bay and Half Moon Bay whereas Proposal 4 would be devastating for the small boater and actually creates unsafe situations.
Proposals 4 and 1-3 both place an MPA at Saunders Reef (an area protected by natural winds and typically rough water) resulting in a disproportionate impact to an area that was severely underrepresented on the Regional Stakeholder Group.
Proposal 2-XA is the only proposal to create an underwater park at Sea Ranch specifically designed for non-consumptive divers while leaving open the traditional public access used by consumptive divers south of Stewarts Point, which when coupled with the private lands to the south, becomes a keystone MPA in the overall network. Proposals 1-3 and 4 impact recreational and commercial users to the highest degree by extending their SMR out to the state waters boundary. Only Proposal 2-XA has struck a real balance in this part of the study area which is reflected in the massive support from local residents, land owners, fishermen, and conservationists.
Proposal 2-XA is the only proposal to have broad support from a wide range of fishing user groups.


dan

--------------------
Thanks for your club support. Our fishery is too important not to care.

http://www.keepamericafishing.org

[bigeyedave]

Meeting Info for tomorrow and Wed.

What’s going on:

In an effort to keep you all informed on the MLPA we are going to broadcast this global message on all Coastside discussion boards until the MLPA issue is resolved. The thread title will have the date updated as the information changes. This message will contain exactly what you can personally do to support recreational angling in this matter. We will have another thread for specific questions only.

So please do the following now:

1. Attend Blue Ribbon Task Force Meeting on April 22-23.

Embassy Suites Hotel
101 McInnis Parkway
San Rafael, CA 94903

This Hotel is just North of the Marin County Civic Center
(the Big Frank LLoyd Wright designed building East of Hy. 101).

Tuesday the 22 starting at 9:30 am
Wednesday the 23 at 8:30 am

Plan on getting there early if you can – we need to make our presence known.

Speaking:

There will be speaker’s cards. If you wish to speak fill one out. Expect a limit of two minutes or less. We have about 8 key speakers chosen to get the main message across but we may ask for more, you should to be ready. This will be decided at the meeting. Have your thoughts outlined and stay on the points of 2-XA and how it is better than the other proposals. We need to put a personal face on this issue so tell the BRTF how specific MPA areas will affect you, your family your business including vessel safety and fair access. Actually what you have been putting in your letters would be a good start with emphasis on the personal impact.

Shirts and Stickers:

Wear your Coastside garb if you have some. Rick Ross has had some shirts made up and we will also have stickers to wear.

Conduct:

It is important to be professional at the meetings. Yes, this is frustrating process and a frustrating time but this is very important. Lets show them that we know what we are talking about and have truth and data on our side.


2. Write and send your personal Support Proposal 2-XA E-mail too...

E-mail BRTF http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/publiccomments.asp
CC: Dept of Resources: Mike.Chrisman@resources.ca.gov
Please cut and paste your personal letter into the following website also:
Governor: http://gov.ca.gov/interact

Some important info to bring up (from Ben):

“I wanted to pass along an important piece of information that came out of the SAT evaluation. Believe it or not but 2-XA was the ONLY proposal to meet the SAT size and spacing guidelines for ALL the habitat types at the Moderate-High level of protection of higher. The other two proposals, 13 and 4, only meet the SAT guidelines at the Moderate level of protection. In other words, they have a "gap" in protection of at least one habitat.

What this all means is that 2-XA is the most complete and comprehensive proposal and does the best job of meeting the scientific guidelines set forth by the process. And while it is the best scientific proposal, 2-XA is also the best in terms of minimizing socioeconomic impacts to users.”

3. ASA Form Letter Link:

http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/issues/alert/?alertid=11225626

4. Print out and get others to sign:

http://home.comcast.net/~tajsharma/Coastside/MLPA%20Letter.pdf

These can be turned in at the meeting Tuesday morning

MLPA Maps: So you are informed.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/nccrsg-proposals.asp

[bigeyedave]

Here is the latest on the MLPA maps. We can still change this and keep Salt Point open but we need you to show for the meeting in June. I'll post more about it soon. Take a look at what you might be losing.
MLPA Initiative] Integrated preferred alternative maps and description
California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Announcement

WHO: MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)

WHAT: A region-wide map, subregional maps, and a description of the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) MPA Proposal for the MLPA North Central Coast Study Region. The BRTF adopted the IPA on April 23, 2008 and will forward this recommended preferred alternative to the California Fish and Game Commission, along with three proposals developed by the MLPA North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group in March 2008.

WHERE: Now posted to the MLPA website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/northcentralcoast.asp

Thank you for your patience in awaiting these materials as staff worked to ensure their accuracy. Additional materials (staff summary, habitat calculations, etc.) will be posted to the website as they become available.


Jim

[bigeyedave]

We are starting to gear up for the last battle at the F%G Commission.

We are going to have a strategy meeting in Southern California on Sunday with our governing body. This is not new we have been doing this on a regular basis for the last year after the PSO was formed. The only new part is the topic is now the commission.

We have all logged a lot of air miles especially Dan with one on one meetings with the BRTF and commission.

It seems like yesterday at Darrell’s house we put together the plan, and now we have gotten beyond the SAT, BRTF, RSG, private meeting with the public, and now the final push.

I want to warn you about thinking we have Duxbury and others in the bag. I believe the biggest war is still ahead, but we have some friends on the commission.

I talked with both ASA, and our lobby in Sacramento today digesting what happened yesterday, and we still think there is a lot of work to do, but we have improved our position.

I got a laugh when our lobby George Osborn said one of the leaders in the environmental community and I mean this person is near the top said in a break yesterday to George you guys are kicking our ass.

We will be giving the marching orders to you guys in the coming days, we must be prepared to make even a bigger effort to protect what we accomplished and show there is still more room for 2XA in some areas.

One last comment from George today. I asked him what he thought of the Coastside members. He thought you were wonderful. He said they were everywhere, with white 2XA shirts. Patty from ASA said there was a sea of white.

I can’t thank you guys enough.

Bob

--------------------
Thanks for your club support. Our fishery is too important not to care.

http://www.keepamericafishing.org

Bob Franko

[FishFighter]

Thanks BoB!!!

[Kale]

So when will we hear the final word on these closures? I don't remember exacly what the perferred proposal was for down here(Central Coast), but I know that the commission pretty much made their own map in the end. . . .so we really don't know anything yet

[bigeyedave]

The Fish and Game Commission will meet at the Flamingo Conference Resort Hotel in Santa Rosa (2777 Fourth Street) on Thursday October the 2nd to take public testimony on the north central coast MLPA proposals. THIS IS YOUR CALL TO ARMS – THE “SEA OF WHITE” NEEDS TO RALLY TO SUPPORT THE CAUSE! This is the second item on their Thursday agenda, which will start at 10AM. There will be NO DECISION at this meeting – that will most likely happen in December or January.

The PSO will be there to make our case for the amendments that we want the Commission to make to the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA). We have already submitted our request to the Commission in the letter incorporated in my MLPA End Game Strategy post. For the last two days I have been in San Diego and Los Angeles to solidify our position with our PSO partners and to make additional contact with the BRTF members.

So here is what we need our Coastside members to do; and always in a respectful tone, and with a positive attitude. We have much to lose by an inappropriate confrontation, and much to gain by respectful and well informed input to the Commission.

Show up in your 2XA t-shirts. Let your shirts do your talking for 2XA – they know we support it, and there is no need to beleaguer that point.

Focus on the abalone issue and the unintended consequences to communities and the abalone fishery that were unknowingly built into the IPA. These unknowns and unintended consequences can be addressed by minor technical corrections to the regulations for the three areas identified in the PSO letter: Sea Lion Cove, Saunders Reef (where we also want to allow shore based angling), and the Russian River.
• Focus on the health of the abalone fishery in this area of the coast as consistently stated throughout the process by the Department of Fish Game.
• Focus on how the abalone fishery constitutes the economic backbone of the recreational fishery in this study area.
• Focus on the unintended negative economic impact of the IPA abalone regulations - which can be as large as 38% for the IPA ($3.4M annually), and which can be reduced to 27% ($2.5M) by these three simple technical corrections.
If you do choose to speak, you will only have a minute or two at most. Stay on message, be respectful, and perhaps we can bring some relief to the communities on the north coast and to the thousands of abalone fishermen.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the guys who have gotten us to this point – we need to play a smart end game to ensure that we don’t stumble now. Show up and play a smart end game.

Thanks, dan

[bigeyedave]

REVISED AGENDA3
The sole revision to the October 2, 2008, Fish and Game Commission meeting, is a change in
the starting time to 8:30 a.m. The meeting will open at 8:30 a.m. and go into Executive Session
immediately. The Public Form will begin at 10:00 a.m.
ALL MEETINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
NOTE: Items may be heard on either day and in any order pursuant to the determination
of the Commission President.
1. PUBLIC FORUM– Any member of the public may address and/or ask questions of the Commission
relating to the implementation of its policies or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission. As
a general rule, action cannot be taken on issues not listed on the agenda. Staff will normally be requested to
follow up on such items at the discretion of the Commission. Submittal of written comments is encouraged to
ensure that all comments will be included in the record before the Commission. Please be prepared to
summarize your comments to the time allocated by the President.
2. RECEIPT OF PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION
TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF COMMISSION INTENT TO AMEND SECTION 632,
TITLE 14, CCR, RE: NORTH CENTRAL COAST MARINE PROTECTED AREAS (MPA).
(Note: The proposed Initial Statement of Reasons is posted on the Commission's
website at: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2008/proposedregs08.asp)
3. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND RECEIPT OF
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PETITION TO DELIST THE CALIFORNIA BROWN
PELICAN (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES
LIST.
1 These facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. To request reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact
California Relay Service at 1 (800) 735-2929 (TT) or 1 (800) 735-2922 (Voice) and ask them to contact the California Fish and Game
Commission at (916) 653-4899.
2 The Commission may break for lunch at approximately 12:00 noon.
3 The public is encouraged to comment on any item on the agenda. In order for the Commission to adequately consider public comments,
the public is requested to submit written comments no later than ten days prior to the meeting. Written comments received fewer than
ten days preceding the meeting will be submitted to the Commission at the meeting; however, Commission staff is unable to deliver
material received one day before and on the day of the meeting to the Commissioners when the meeting is not in Sacramento. Please
send your comments to be received no later than two days before the meeting.
If you decide to speak at the Commission meeting, please begin by giving your name and affiliation (if any) and the number