This is very good news for coastal fishermen and all fisherman in general. But if we want it to last we all need to act. I won't go into details but our new Gov. has stopped the MLPA process. His reason was lack of funds.

There is a whacko environmentalist group who is trying to raise money to get it going again. They did it before, and we sat and watch our islands disappear and almost watched our coastline disappear. Let's not let it happen again.

I was a member of one of the MLPA working groups and all I saw was tons of money being flushed down the toilet for nothing. It was un-believable how they were wasting money at those meetings.

Let Arnold know what you think...
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

More information here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/7697991.htm
http://www.allcoastsportfishing.com/dcforum/Main/15274.html
http://www.allcoastsportfishing.com/dcforum/Main/15306.html

It has always been my personal belief that lower catch limits, size limits, and slot limits, along with "recreational fishing" only reserves, and "catch and release/artificial lure only" reserves is the answer - and only if there is un-deniable proof that recreational fishing is causing the problem.

Thanks for posting that Pete! I read that a couple days ago, and it is definitely good news.

I went up to Sacremento in early '02 to protest the closures. The enviros were there in full force. These people are well funded, and organized.

Perhaps if California's marine fisheries were in abundant numbers, then the idea of marine reserves would never have been conceived. Recreational fisherman are not the problem... never have, never will. There is a new bill - Senate Bill 236 introduced by Senator Dede Alpert (D, San Diego), that proposes to sharply restrict fishing with bottom trawl gear. Noticed the increased populations of coastal Halibut within the last few years? Many suspect that the '98 ban on inshore gill netting had something to do with this increase. A similiar restriction on bottom trawling might initiate an equal growth. Letters addressed to the governor ought to address bottom trawling practices as well.

www.stoptrawling.org

Pete,

You are dead on with your quote

"It has always been my personal belief that lower catch limits, size limits, and slot limits, along with "recreational fishing" only reserves, and "catch and release/artificial lure only" reserves is the answer - and only if there is un-deniable proof that recreational fishing is causing the problem."

Stopping all recreational fishing in specific areas is not the answer. Reasonable bag limits for both sport and commercial fisherman, and catch and release (even if it IS mandatory) is the answer.

I'd much rather be catching and releasing than not fishing at all.

You are absolutley right Rob when you say:
"I'd much rather be catching and releasing than not fishing at all."

It's funny, when you make that same point to an enviro...the point about making a "catch and release" area, they are not interested. It seems that some of these people just flat out don't want us fishing--it doesn't matter whether we release fish or not.

When the extreme environmentalists won't even consider catch and release I view that stance as un-deniable proof that they have a hidden agenda. It goes beyond trying to protecting species from depleted populations. What is really going on is that they don't want us to "hurt the fishies". They are using the "depleted resources" B.S. to try and ban recreational fishing altogether. If that wasn't the case they would be open to suggestions such as catch and release.

Hidden Agenda - here it is: http://www.fishinghurts.com/

Yup. It's sad.

The best thing we as anglers can do is be well informed--and join the United Anglers and the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Membership to these organizations is not much at all...it is funny, guys are willing to drop $250 to go albacore fishing, but when it comes times to spend $35 to help protect their right to fish........hmmmmm.


Here is a pic of us up in Sacramento in '02 for a DFG Commission meeting.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/1860.jpg



Here is a shot of the San Diego DFGC meeting:

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/1861.jpg


And here are some shots of us at 22nd St. in Nov of '02. This event was pretty cool...boats from all over participated and paraded through LA Harbor. In the last 2 pictures, you can see the long line of boats.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/1862.jpg

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/1864.jpg

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/1865.jpg

Attachment #1, (.jpg file)
Attachment #2, (.jpg file)
Attachment #3, (.jpg file)
Attachment #4, (.jpg file)
Attachment #5, (.jpg file)

Cool pics, I was at the first two. Anybody who's dealt with these people knows they definitely have a hidden agenda. Once you start arguing about logic of fishery management, you know your opposition can't be that much concerned with managing the fishery.
-Brian

All this antifishing crap makes me sick. It looks like I will be writing letters joining United anglers at the Fred Hall show and ecourageing others to do the same. I still don't see the hidden agenda can anyone tell me what it is.
Batman

www.getbentsportfishing.com

These enviro orgs like The Ocean Conservancy and NRDC claim that their extreme positions are to help the fishery, when in reality they just don't want people fishing. There's a couple discussions on allcoast about it right now, and if you do a search for mlpa, nrdc, marine reserve, etc you'll find more than enough info on the subject. http://www.allcoastsportfishing.com
-Brian