---

The MLPA decision makers are meeting this month to decide on which of the three proposals they will implement in the closures of Northern CA coastal state waters. The three proposals are:

1-3 - exceeds criteria and is very restrictive.
4 - Far exceeds criteria and is Extremely restrictive
2-XA - Least restrictive while still meeting all MLPA criteria

The proposal maps are here
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/nccrsg-proposals.asp

Proposal 4 is the choice of the environmentalists that want to close as much fishing down as possible.

Proposal 1-3 is less restrictive than 4 but also seeks to close large areas of coastline to fishing including most of Marin County above Duxbury and around Bodega Head.

The MLPA Initiative NEEDS to see that Proposal 2-XA is the only proposal that achieves conservation with the appropriate level of balance.

Main points regarding proposal “2-XA”: (as retrieved from a fishing web site)

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 but:

Proposal 2-XA achieves the scientific and conservation goals of the MLPA

Proposal 2-XA meets Department of Fish and Game feasibility guidelines

Proposal 2-XA is enforceable and will have broad public support

Proposal 2-XA is the only proposal to have broad support from a wide range of fishing user groups

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.

Proposal 2-XA places an emphasis on contributing to a network of MPAs in the "preferred" size range.

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.

Major differences between 2-XA and other proposals:

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 for the small boat owner as they are forced to fish in rougher less protested waters.

Proposals 4 and 13 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, and when coupled with the private lands to the south becomes a keystone MPA in the overall network. Proposals 13 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 a massive support from local residents, land owners, fishermen, and conservationists.

Decision time on the proposal is this month and public comment is being used as one of the determining factors in this decision. Please write a letter or email them.

Reccomend Proposal 2-XA because the future of Californian ability to fish the coastal waters is at stake!

The environmentalists are sending many letters and emails supporting proposal 4 please don't let them shut us down.

When writing letters please speak from the heart do not make form letters. I have it on good authority that form letters are being thrown out.

By the way when they are done with the Northern coast thay will be doing the same to the southern coast and then they plan to do it to SF Bay.

If you want to fish the coast at any time or troll for Salmon on the Marin Coast above Duxbury and you want your kids tio be able to fish those areas then write a letter today and any time you can think of something new to say to promote 2-XA. By the way you must specify 2-XA if you say proposal 2 or proposal XA the letter will get thrown out.

Please do it today!

Tim C.

Back to top

---

Tim, I cant agree more. I live and fish in the southern CA. coastal waters and it is only a matter of time before we have the same problems down here. I joined the united anglers of so CA. at the last Fred Hall show, but I would sure like to help the coastline EVERYWHERE. Thanks for the info, I'll pass it on.

---

Stinkin' tree huggers are ruining it for all of us. If this passes in California, it won't be long before this sort of crap extends to the rest of the U.S. It's not the small, private fisherman that is hurting the quantity of fish, it's the large commercial groups.....as well as foriegn fishing fleets.

---

i agree, last year i probably only kept about 20 flounders from block island sound and only like 2 stripers comertial probably pulls out thousands

---

So who is really ruining it CES? You say it yourself, it's the large commercial and foreign fleets. Maybe you could give it more thought next time before name calling as some of your Whaler brothers may also be environmentalists who indeed like to fish...

---

Some people take the environmentalism too far as in feeling that the general public is a blight on the land. Their attitude seems to be look at nature but, do not touch it. They are seeking to pass laws that prohibit our ability to participate in nature. On the same token thier are commercial interests that have no respect for nature and all they see is dollars i.e. profit and loss. I believe that both of those groups are the people to which CES was refering to.

I believe that I am pro-environment however, I do believe in sustainable harvest principles and personnally feel that humans are a part of nature and we should participate in it. Gross negligence, overharvest, denial of access and polution should be avoided and in criminal cases severely punished but, being out in nature whether it is for a hike, a boat ride, fishing, hunting etc... should be encouraged as it keeps adults and our young people involved in the world we live in. It is far better thing to take a teen out hunting, fishing, hiking or boating then it is to incarcerate or fine them for doing such things.

---

Derwd24. Wow, you sure did take what I said out of context....so please throttle back. I too, do not want to see our environment degrade through misuse and abuse. Fishmore nailed how I feel on the head. It's the extremists that are the ones who are pursuing the restriction to fish and enjoy the very nature they are trying to protect. Ya know, I have had the pleasure to be around the tree hugging extremists I am referring to and I’ve noticed a funny thing. Those same people who are trying to restrict our access to public lands, lakes and oceans are the very ones whom are using the areas themselves….for their personal use disguised and doing nature studies.

Anyway, normal, everyday fishermen are not the people who are depleting our fishing resources...it is the fishermen who I mentioned above. So, because of their misuse and negligence, why should we, as private fishermen individuals, pay the price?

Derwd24. I've re-read your post several times to try and understand what it is you've written and I still cannot see why you're attempting to come down on me? We're on the same team.... and agree as to who is ruining it for everyone. Are you for fishing restrictions? I know that I am not.....and I don't think any of our Whaler brethren are for them either. I think a deeper explanation on your part is due to allow me to see your point of view.

---

CES, It was unclear to me that you were addressing "extremist" environmentalists in your post as around here the term "tree hugger" is just another derogatory adjective for someone who is pro environment, and it appeared as if you were painting with a broad brush placing the blame on environmentalists in general. So when you opened your post with the words "Stinkin' Tree Huggers" it seemed to merit a potent response. It's clear to me from your reply that you, Tim, and I have similar views on respect and use for the environment, this I could not discern from your first post. My sincere apologies.

There has been talk for many years that the waters off the coast of my state here on the east coast have been overfished, and I have no doubt it's a real possibility that similar legislation will be in the news before long as we usually follow the lead of CA on many issues related to the environment. I'm not for limits for people like us, and I think if you took every member of WC and had them fishing off the coast for a week, our catch would be a mere fraction of what the big guys take in on a average day. Clearly we're not the problem. And I'm not sure the extremist environmentalists are the problem either. It seems to me what's happened is that the issue of large scale overfishing has been known about but left unaddressed for so long that it's reached the point where it's become significantly troubling enough to have given them a leg to stand on in regards to legislative influence. Had it been addressed sooner, efficiently and effectively, the cries of the extremists would be baseless and the need for legislation would be moot.

Anyway, I hope that helps to clarify where I'm coming from.

---

Derwd24 - PEACE :D, It's clear we both feel the same way concerning this topic, we're just looking at it from different perspectives. Thank you for clarifying your point and I hope our debate does not impede future communication.

Cliff

---

No worries Cliff, absolutely won't! Peace Brother!

Dave

---

Raised in California and many (30) years in Alaska, has taught me that nothing "environmentalist" funded, pushed or supported is worthwhile. These self described are usually and simply another extremist group in a long line of extremist groups selfishly pushing their own agenda, and hiding their real and IMHO seriously dangerous agendas.
We need to fight back and force the government to open ALL public lands and waters to Americans. (IMHO) The regulations are already in place to reduce damage and pollution, closure is not right, no matter the consequences.

---

gusgus,

Here is a tip.
Look at the dates of the prior posts..
This thread and last post is over 3 years old.