I finally had some time at home to sit down and look over the proposals. From what I understand, they are proposing a SMR (State Marine Reserve) from Coal Oil Point, east, to the Goleta Pier. At the boundary of the SMR, at Coal Oil Point, they are proposing a SMCA (State Marine Conservation Area) west, up to Naples. The conservation areas are kind of iffy. I'll need to talk to some people, but it sounds to me like catch and release might be allowed in those areas. The definition on the DFG website said certain recreational and commercial use is allowed, so we might have a good chance of convincing the committee to allow catch and release, if it comes down to that. Or we could probably push for tighter slot limts in that area. I think the most feasible approach would be to move the boundary of the SMR west, to campus point. And then either extend the SMCA west 1/2 mile, or extend the SMR west 1/4 mile past Coal Oil Point (this might get confusing for enforcement, however). There is also a SMP (state marine park) being proposed in the Rincon/Carp area. We don't need to worry about that too much because it will basically only effect the commercials.

So, IMO the most desirable outcome (taking feasibility into consideration...) would be a SMR from Campus Point, west, to the already designated boundary at Coal Oil Point. Then, a SMCA from Campus Point, west to 1/2 mile west of the currently designated boundary. In the SMCA, the halibut limit would be 3, wsb 2 and bass 5. I personally don't care about rockfish in any of these areas. As far as I'm concerned, you can have no take on rockfish in those areas, but Jason might not be too happy with that...

Obviously, the most ideal concept would be to abolish the whole MLPA deal, but that's not going to happen unless this "freedom to fish" Bill passes, and it rules out this piece of legislature. But, that's out of my control, so I'm not going to take that into consideration.

Again taking feasibility into account, but this time stretching it a little, I'd like to see no take on bass, 4 fish limit on halibut, and 3 fish limit on wsb within the SMCA. You can still fish for bass, but catch and release is mandatory (man, wouldn't that be sweet...).

I'm still kicking around a few ideas, and I've got a ton of other scenarios lined up in my head, but it's too much to type. Let me give a quick tip for you guys just getting into this type of process. Don't be drastic. If you walk into a meeting, pushing for no reserves at all, and no conservation areas, yada yada, it's not gonna fly. You have to work with the folks. I agree, it's BS, but it's too late to change now. What I would suggest is to make it so that it has the least amount of impact as possible. IMO, the SMR on Goleta Beach is out of line. West of campus point, I can deal with. I don't know how this committee is going to handle moving boundaries and such, and I also don't know if our input will even be considered, or if we'll have a voice on the DFG committee through which we can express our thoughts. I haven't heard anything along those lines, so again I'll have to talk to some people about that. If there is no way we have a direct voice being expressed to the committee, by a representative, I would expect RFA or UA to take some type of legal action. This is a big deal, it's effecting the whole state, and if no fisherman can be represented besides public comment periods (which some believe have no real effect on the outcome, and are only required in the process), the $hit's gonna hit the fan.
-Brian

UPDATE:

Just found some better descriptions of what's going to happen in the different areas.

For some reason I seemed to have skipped over the little SMP at Refugio. That area will be no commercial fishing. So that's sweet. We don't have to worry about that too much.

The SMCA at Naples (the one starting at Coal Oil Point and extending west) will be commercial lobster fishing, and recreational lobster and finfishing only. So, again, that's awesome. No worries on that one.

The SMR at Goleta Beach (Coal Oil Point, east) is no commercial or recreational fishing permitted. I have a problem with that one...

And the SMP at Rincon/Carp will be no commercial fishing and no recreational fishing besides shore fishing (or "shore based fishing") with hook and line. Shore fishing wasn't my concern for this area, but then again I'm not a huge surf fisherman. I was mainly concerned about the thresher and salmon fishing in the area, along with the bass.

So, with that said, we only need to worry about changing one and a half of these things... We need to do something about the Goleta Beach thing. I'm still waiting on a reply from somebody, but I'm assuming it won't be too big of a deal to move it over to Campus Point, especially if we add to something else. The Carp SMP might need some tweaking as well. Reduced slot limits, or increased size limits or something to that nature might be feasible to allow for recreational fishing. I'm not conerned with float tubing or kayaking in the area, because I don't normally float tube around there, so this is all private boater stuff.

Of course, all of these alternatives that we're coming up with are based on the assumption that they'll be heard. If a couple guys just mention this in a public comment period, it isn't going to change anything. It'll be recorded on a piece of paper and then brushed off. What we need is somebody on the committee or some way UA and/or RFA and/or SAC can give input to the DFG committee. If UA can have input that will actually effect what's happening, we may have a decent shot of getting that SMR away from Goleta Beach. I've corresponded with Tom Raftican quite a bit at the previous CI meetings, and I'm confident that he'll take our comments into consideration, whole heartedly. Again, I'm still waiting on info on whether we'll be represented at all in these meetings, and whether moving boundaries is feasible, among other things. I'll keep the board updated as I find out.
-Brian

LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-01 AT 07:40 PM (PST)

Movement of the Coal Oil Point Reserve is one of my nine different alternatives that I've presented to Paul Reilly and from everything I've read so far I feel it is the best one. I think an effort to get the Coal Oil Point MPR (and subsequently the Naples Conservation Area) moved up the coast 1/2 mile (or whatever the distance is from Goleta Pier to Campus Point) is by far the best solution - and probably the most likely to be approved - especially if we all join forces and get behind this idea. Here are some arguments we can use:

1) Impact of a complete fishing closure in the cove will be much more detrimental to the public and anglers who have enjoyed that area thier entire lives than the same distance of coastline to the west of Coal Oil Point.

2) The area to the west of Coal Oil Point is probably a better area to close to fishing from the view of the conservationalist than the flat sandy cove that primarily attracts only halibut and the occasional seabass.

3) The area in square miles of closure will be exactly the same - just moved slightly.

I feel the second best alternative is also one you mentioned but it is a little more confusing. Move the Coal Oil Point MPR as mentioned above, chop off the eastern 1/2 mile of the Naples Conservation Area and apply it to the area between Goleta Pier and Campus Point. Like Brian mentioned recreational fishing will still be allowed in the Conservation Area but limited and bag limits will be smaller (fine with me as I'd rather keep nothing and continue to fish there than not fish there at all).

If this is the area we are going to target to try and get them to change I think we should really try to join forces and act together to get this thing implemented. First thing we need to know is the exact distance from Goleta Pier to Campus Point so we can tell them exactly how far the Reserve needs to be moved. Another thing we should do that would fuel or attack would be to find out what the environment is like to the west of Coal Oil Point. If it is a better environment for fish and invertabrates than the cove and we can somehow prove it or find someone to prove it that would probably be all the ammunition we would need.

If anyone who has not written their letters yet agrees with either one of these plans please include it in your letter as an alternate idea. It seems they are open to alternatives that benefit us and them.

"SAVE OUR COVE!"

***********************

You can't catch tomorrow what you kill today - please practice catch and release.

I have taken the original map from the DFG website and created two maps with the two most likely scenarios that will save the cove from the fishing ban.

Original plan: First map - Fishing ban includes the area from Goleta Pier to Campus Point - our beloved cove.

First Alternative: Move Coal Oil Point Marine Reserve and Naples Marine Conservation Area up the coast so that the East end of the Coal Oil Point Reserve starts at Campus Point. See second map.

Second Altervative: Move Coal Oil Point like above but instead of moving the Naples Marine Conservation Area cut a piece of it off of the east side and apply it to the east side of where the current Coal Oil Point Reserve is. See third map.

First Map - Original Plan
http://www.sresearch.com/images/pw/map_south_original.jpg

Second Map - Best Alternative
http://www.sresearch.com/images/pw/map_south_alternative_1.jpg

Third Map - 2nd Best Alternative
http://www.sresearch.com/images/pw/map_south_alternative_2.jpg

I can't imagine that this small change is too much to ask of the DFG but like Brian said we need to present it to the right people and make sure our voice is heard.

Also one last note: According to a map of Santa Barbara Campus Point is actually called "Goleta Point".

***********************

You can't catch tomorrow what you kill today - please practice catch and release.

Sounds good Pete. I'll let you know when I find out who we need to talk to. Check your email.
-Brian

You guys have some great ideas regarding modifications to the Coal Oil Point/Campus Point plan. I definitely agree that the current plans need to be modified significantly. However, I also feel that the proposed Carp Reserve is WAY out of line. I'm not sure about this but wouldn't this area encompass Horseshoe Kelp and even the Armpit? If that's the case, then we will be losing some terrific fishing spots. And the impact to the Stardust could be huge since these areas are their bread and butter for the most part.

I'm still struggling with the need for these reserves or parks or conservation areas or whatever you want to call them in our area. I call them an insult us conservation-minded anglers.

I had to restart my computer and cut and pasted this to the wrong message, so sorry for the double post. It was meant for here.
MD

Hey Guys,

Been away for a whlie but wanted to give my 2 cents.

As for slot limits and reduced limits, I dont think that they will go as they are a
logistical nightmare for F&G.

For you guys that tube and yak fish, and us shore based freedivers, it makes
perfect sense, but you must realize that most of F&G contacts will either be at
the launch ramp or via boat while under way. How many times have you been
checked on the water in your tube/yak as opposed to private boat? How will
you be able to prove that you got those XX bass just outside of the reserve
and therefor dont have a reduced limit when on a private boat? )obviously in a
tube the distances traveled are limited)

I do like the fact that the F&G didn't realize that tubers and yakers were
fishing these coves. This needs to be told to them.

You also might want to take a poll amongst your selves, as tubers, yakers and
surf fishermen of these componants:

How you fish:

What you fish for:

WHat you keep:

How often per month:

Where you fish:

How often:

What you can stand to lose:

WHAT YOU CANT!:

What you guys might want to focus on is to quantify what losses you will incur
if these spots are taken..... IE.


I will lose 75% of my halibut fishing area, 50% of my white seabass and 40% of
my calico bass if you take the area from Campus point away. A much more
feasable area to take would be from Goleta Pier or the next point down (seals)
to Hope Ranch beach ( these areas being harder to access via
beach/tube/yak)


Be realistic, you can stand up and say NO CLOSURES, or you can smell the
coffee and realize that it is a LAW on the books that these areas be closed
and shape them. Having them repealed later is a whole different battle. If you
come in screaming that NO CLOSURES< NO CLOSURES, they will say thank you,
and move on to the next guy who says, I fish this area and I feed my family
there. I fish off the rocks. and BLMO, shore fishing is allowed, but everyone
else loses out in the decision making process.....


As for the statement that campus point is only a good area for flat sand and
mostly halibut, first of all, there is a lot of stucture out there, there are areas
with plenty of WSB(shhhh you didnt hear it from me) and lastly, they dont
care they want to a slice of all different zones, ie, rock reefs, sandy flats, eel
grass and surf grass as well as kelp areas. You want to be careful about how
you discribe the different spots. These are divers/biologists and if you come
out with a statement that this area is flat sand and all there is there is halibut,
and they know otherwise that there is structure and kelp, you lose credibility
and your statements lose their power.

I am stating this after being reamed for making what I thought were true
comments based on my observations and having a biologist set me straight (
he was a pro-spearo bio).

Please dont take these as personal attacks or critisizms but as guidance. Think
about what you want. Does it make sense, or more importantly scientific
sense, practical sense..... Will it fly. I would love to sea areas with C&R, others
with a 15" limit on bass but in reality I realize that a) it will not fly with F&G for
logistical reasons, b) it will not work into their master plan of species
management and c) the species may not need this as a management tool.

Another thing to think about, is that if they take away 25% of our prime fishing
grounds, that our overall limits should be reduced by at least that amount, if
not more to sustain the populations of these fish at other spots, some mush
less desirable to these species, OR they will come back in 3 or 5 years and say
"you see, these fish need more help, they are fine in the protected areas, see,
so we need to take more areas..." when in fact these areas that we have left
were never that good for that given species to begin with.

My 2 cents.....

Marco Farrell

From what I hear they are VERY open to our opinions and will work with us on moving closure areas.

Concentrate on your goals. Don't start splintering and blaming commercials, scuba guys..... the environazi will take care of that. Just focus on what you want done and not splintering up the different groups. It is not C&R tubers against private boaters against commies......

mD

brian call me

MD
455-5362