It seems far to many people on these boards jump the gun claiming the DFG is out there to shut down all fishing and really stick it to us fishermen. If they were out to shut down all fishing they would be slitting their own throats. They may be a little ignorant but certainly not that much. The DFG is not the most intelligent agency in the state but they are all we have. Although their title says otherwise they are not just in charge of fish & game species. They are in charge of protecting all of California’s wildlife for all of its citizens. They depend on license sales for over 60% of their revenue. 20% from federal aid. Only 5% of their revenue comes from the state/general public!!! A little over 10% of revenue from other sources. Why the lack of funding from the general public? That is the question we should be asking DFG. They need a public relations program so as to be able to collect more funds from the 30+ million Californians. Look at the PR programs the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy has. They collect million and millions of dollars in donations from the public. Have you ever seen a commercial for the DFG or ever been contacted by them by way of any form of media? No! It wouldn't take much for them to start a public relations campaign in order to collect more money for managing California’s rich diversity of wildlife. The biggest winners of this would be us, the fishermen, who get so much enjoyment from the outdoors and being able to catch the tons of fish that the outdoors provides.

Please point me to the post where it says that the DFG is trying to "shut down all fishing". I think there have been some good discussions of the pros and cons of the MLPA and other proposed closures on the this board. I think by in large people on this board respect the DFG for what they do in regards to protecting our fishing resources and making sure that everyone obeys the laws. I personally get great satisfaction in seeing DFG bust people who are breaking the law. Where some might have issue is when it comes to shutting down large portions of the California coast to all fishing.
Please get your facts straight before coming in with the flames.

Swimbait,

No flame intended. Got to watch ourselves more with email. You may have just misunderstood my first statement. My facts have been and are straight. I wasn't pointing to any board or person in particular on this site or any other. Every once and a while I come across a thread, maybe not here, where people are letting their emotions run hot and going a little overboard. Saying things like if we don’t stop the MLPA the DFG isn’t going to stop there. They will just close one area after another. I just see that kind of talk a little misleading and unproductive.

I don't want to get back into this MLPA debate, but even if they got every “state marine reserve” they wanted I personally wouldn't worry as a recreational fisherman. Let the fishes have a few place where they could be unmolested and lets see what happens with their populations. I have fished so many of the hot spots up and down the coast, nearshore and offshore, and in areas they want to close. I’ll just move on to a different area and still catch ‘em. The ocean is a huge area and there are a million great spots off California to fish no matter where you live. Many fish stocks are in decline or at very low levels and there are more things we need to do about it.

Our population is growing exponentially along with our demand for ocean resources. And as ocean resources begin to dry up commercial fisherman are going to be hurt by it. There’s no way to get around that. We’re all going to feel the pain. Our country consumes 30% of the energy produced annually worldwide while only producing 5%. We are all going to have to lower our standards of living a bit unlike what GWB says.

The DFG has got a lot of people frustrated and scared about losing their rights to fish in some productive waters and rightly so. But we all let this happen and we knew it was coming sooner or later and we are all going to have to deal with it. I don’t want to totally defend everything the DFG does. They can be real idiots dealing with people. And I’m not saying the MLPA doesn’t have its flaws we all see that is does. What I am saying is that the DFG needs to 'get with it' and learn to work better with the people who supply them with the majority of their money, license holders. Then they might be able to do a better job at doing their job. If the DFG would address all Californians, the people they work for, they would make it much easier for themselves to collect funds and information and work with us. They are way behind in the way they should be doing business, typical old style government b.s., and I think everybody in this debate realizes this.

Mike

Mike,
The DFG isn't proposing these closures, nor did they come up with it in the first place. The people backing these closures and supporting them are radical environmentalists. That's who people are saying aren't going to stop (and they won't). The DFG is just stuck with the task of dealing with this mandate. They didn't propose it, it wasn't their idea. Most of the anger and frustration is being aimed at the enviros, not the DFG.
-Brian

Brian,

Friendly,
If the DFG isn’t proposing these closures or come up with them then who did? It wasn’t the radicals, no one listens to them. Radical environmentalists are by far not the only ones supporting these closures. Radical environmentalists are few and far between. We think they are everywhere because they get the media coverage because they are radical. They know how to get their voices heard. To me it seems they are usually jobless uneducated people with too much idle time. Spending their time searching for conspiracy theories to give them credibility or by not looking at the issue holistically. Their beliefs are usually nonsense and unsound. Their beliefs don't stand up in the peer review journal world of good science. These people have no real power to change things because they have virtually no support from the lay community or the scientific community. Closures are not always radical ideas. Most Californian’s want some closures. They voted for something big to be done because something big is happening to the planets resources. Radical environmentalists are not going to stop, your right, because there are always going to be people looking for conspiracy theories. Ex., we never landed on the moon, aliens killed JFK, Elvis is still alive, all genetically engineered foods are bad, legal sport hunting and fishing is cruel and bad for all wildlife. None of these are true or make any sense scientifically. They will always allow legal fishing and hunting because many laws, theories, and concepts that show it is mostly not harmful at all and can be a helpful tool. Radicals don’t run the country. Relatively very few environmentalists are radicals. More and more people are becoming environmentalists because they don’t like how modern culture is becoming further and further detached from the land.
Now I've got to go catch a plane for Wisconsin so I can catch me some salmon and pike.

Mike

Mike,
I'll try to keep this civil, but you have your facts WRONG. Radical environmentalists do outnumber the fishermen that are active in the MLPA process (up until the last meeting). To say that they have no power, is not only wrong, it's naive. I have experienced their power and political tactics first hand. Believe me, they know what they're doing. I've promised people I wouldn't talk about some of the things that are going on, so I won't, but believe me, they have more power than we do in this situation. They are backed by organizations with millions in their budget. We have UA, RFA and SAC. If that. We have hundreds, MAYBE thousands in our budget. These enviros have people that get paid to go to these meetings, they have people that get paid to lobby in Sacramento, etc. We have Tom Raftican and Bob Fletcher as our two paid representatives. They have hundreds. They are working the system much more effectively than we are. I agree that most of these radical environmentalists are nothing but air headed pot smokers, and it is hard to believe that they have more power than we do, but they do. Keep in mind, they are not environmentalists, we are. They are anti fishing lobbyists who don't care about the fishery, they just want to close down fishing. We are really trying to help the fishery.
-Brian

Brian's right, your facts are wrong.

The NFWF www.nfwf.org is one of the environmental groups behind the MLPA. I'm not sure how radical they are, but it's obvious that they are completely behind the MLPA (which may not be an entirely bad thing if used wisely). So far they've granted almost $50,000 to the MLPA induction process. The CA Legislature passed the MLPA without having ANYTHING to do with the DFG. Now they've basically dumped this new law on the DFG to figure out how to put into action.

The NRDC www.nrdc.org is another group which had donated large sums of money which paid for many of the MLPA public workshops and was one of the original backers of this bill when it was first vetoed by Gov Wilson in 1999. Here's some text straight from their website:

In the 1998 legislative session, NRDC helped usher through the legislature a bill to set up a network of marine protected areas, only to see it vetoed by former Governor Wilson. In the 1999 session, Assemblyman Kevin Shelley reintroduced the bill in the California Assembly as A.B. 993, the Marine Life Protection Act. The bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate with bipartisan support. With a new administration in California, a legislature lead by environmental supporters, and widespread support for efforts to ensure that fish and marine animals thrive, NRDC is optimistic that the Marine Life Protection Act has a good chance of becoming law in 1999.

Now, you tell me who's behind this law? The DFG? I don't think so. Look at all the ADDITIONAL work they have to do now with NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING (that part was line item VETOED by Gov Davis). The DFG would not have done something so drastic, something that adversely effects so many of their "customers."

TL,
Adam