|
You’ve probably noticed the changes on the KFACA website. They are not only skin deep. We’re gearing up and forging on. We’re humbled by the trust we’ve earned in the kayak fishing community. People who make their livelihood at this sport we love are backing us up. You can see a list of our business supporters at www.kfaca.org/support. We’re grateful for the behind the scenes help we’ve been getting from people who prefer to stay out of the limelight. The KFACA is transitioning from a skeleton staff to a truly representational structure. As always, we are non-profit and non-commercial. The current staff is:
Paul Lebowitz, Director
The
KFACA
Advisory Board is: We can’t do anything without the backing of our rank and file supporters. Like you, we’re doing this to protect a sport we love. If you have ideas on how we could do better, tell us! We’re doing what we can with limited resources, and learning as we go. If you want to do more, read on:
Your Help Wanted! |
|
December 2007 MLPA Update –
Marine Reserve Process
Coming to Southern California
in Early 2008
On December 7 California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman
announced that the process responsible for closing nearly 20 percent of
the coast from Pigeon Pt to Pt Conception earlier this year will start
looking at
Southern California in spring 2008. Paul Lebowitz
The Process
It's going to take some time before the ball gets rolling. Here’s roughly how it works. Excuse the alphabet soup. 1. The Blue Ribbon Task Force, political appointees, runs the game. 2. The state compiles stakeholders from the study region. That's anyone who "uses" the ocean: anglers, commercial fishermen, divers, bird-watchers, even artists who paint it, and representatives from well-funded environmental groups such as the NRDC. 3. The stakeholders meet to cook up reserve proposals. Those are evaluated by the Science Advisory Team, who rank the packages for conservation value, recreation, and economic impact. 4. The BRTF / DFG send the packages off to the state Fish and Game Commission. That 5 member panel decides what to close. Public comment is welcome throughout the process, either in person at public meetings (BRTF and F&G) or directly to the state via email. We'll let you know when we think it is worth your time, but I hope everyone will follow the process individually and take the opportunity to have his or her voice heard. If you're still reading, my thanks. As I see it, kayak anglers are uniquely vulnerable because much of our use is determined by where we can get on the water. Our first step as a group is to get someone on the stakeholder's panel. The state will call for nominations in a few months. I will submit my name. I hope others will as well, plus we'll need an alternate. At a minimum, the Stakeholder's Panel meets at least once a month during business hours. The meetings can be anywhere in the study area, in this case Pt Conception to the border. It is a serious time and travel commitment that will take roughly a year to complete.
If we place a representative on the stakeholder's panel we
will be part of the collaborative planning effort. We can make sure
impacts on us are counted, and nudge a reserve line this way or that
or maybe influence what kind of MPA an area gets. We can also work
in common cause with the rest of the recreational fishing community
when our interests line up, which they often will. Work Continues in the North Central California Coast Study Region The Stakeholder’s process is well underway in the north central coast study region, an area that spans Alder Creek / Pt Arena to Pigeon Pt. Kayak anglers enjoy excellent representation via Sean White. White is a hardcore kayak angler and all around great guy who runs the Great White Kayak Company from Ukiah, California. He also happens to be a fisheries biologist. White is working with our friends at NorCal Kayak Anglers. Please visit their website for additional information.First MLPA Closures on the Books in Central California The first set of MLPA closures went into effect this past September in Central California. The closures equate to roughly 18% of the total area, which doesn't sound too bad until you consider that some estimates peg them at a cool 40% of the productive hard bottom areas.
New major marine
protected areas went into effect at Ano Nuevo (THAT one didn’t
bother kayakers), Asilomar,
Carmel
Bay, Pt Sur, Big Creek, Piedras Blancas, Cambria, Pt Buchon, and
Vandenburg. The existing reserve at Pt Lobos was enlarged.
Lower Big Sur,
specifically the
Pacific
Valley
area, was spared In the greater sportfishing community, Virg’s Landing in Morro Bay took a terrible hit. Many if not most of their local go-to rockfish spots off Pt Buchon were closed. To get a look at the new closures for yourself, visit the DFG’s website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/ccmpas_list.asp. The map is a great representation of how MLPA reserves are spaced no more than 30 miles apart along the coast. The same concepts will apply to the rest of state waters. |
|
Spring
2007 MLPA Update -
Work
Begins in the North Central Study Region |
|
Sept./Oct. 2006 MLPA Update
– Fishing Closures Approved for Central California
North Central Coast Study Region:
South Central Coast Study Region Cambria
area kayakers were not as fortunate. The Cambria reserve will block off
access to the Marine Terraces area, a traditional paddle fishing and
free diving area unpopular with private boaters. Monterey County
kayakers will lose access to the shoreline east of Lover’s Pt, but will
retain the area directly west of the reserve. The nearby Asilomar
coastline will also be closed to all fishing. In upper Big Sur, rarely
fished Pt. Sur is on the closure list. Now that the Central Coast Study Region process is complete, the action will turn to another region. Will it be north or south? According to the MLPA Master Plan Framework, SoCal is next in line. However, that arcane document was not adopted by the Commission. Wither next? It’s anyone best guess. The Commission will likely settle the question at its upcoming October 5 meeting in San Diego.
News
Update: Fish and Game Commission Delays Decision on Where Next for
the MLPA.
|
|
Sept./Oct. 2006 MLPA Update
– Fishing Closures Approved for Central California
North Central Coast Study Region:
South Central Coast Study Region Cambria
area kayakers were not as fortunate. The Cambria reserve will block off
access to the Marine Terraces area, a traditional paddle fishing and
free diving area unpopular with private boaters. Monterey County
kayakers will lose access to the shoreline east of Lover’s Pt, but will
retain the area directly west of the reserve. The nearby Asilomar
coastline will also be closed to all fishing. In upper Big Sur, rarely
fished Pt. Sur is on the closure list. Now that the Central Coast Study Region process is complete, the action will turn to another region. Will it be north or south? According to the MLPA Master Plan Framework, SoCal is next in line. However, that arcane document was not adopted by the Commission. Wither next? It’s anyone best guess. The Commission will likely settle the question at its upcoming October 5 meeting in San Diego.
News
Update: Fish and Game Commission Delays Decision on Where Next for
the MLPA.
|
|
MLPA Update –
Monterey Kayak Angler Pat Grant meets
with DFG Nearshore Ecosystem Coordinator John Ugoretz. As you know, I have been pressing to retain the
ability to fish the north side of Carmel Bay and the area of the
pinnacles. I was nervous when I got to John Ugoretz's
office...........I should not have been. He was gracious and
stopped me from stuttering and fumbling and suggested that based on
our earlier conversations (two via e-mail and one in person at a
meeting in Monterey) he had heard our concerns and "let's look
at what his current thinking is". We moved from the conference
table and he began bringing up maps of the waters off the Monterey
Peninsula area. Really cool ones, by the way! Pat Grant's report of her meeting with John Ugoretz originally appeared on the NorCal Kayak Anglers website: www.norcalkayakanglers.com. |
|
May 2006 MLPA Update – Fishing
Closures on the Horizon in Central California What is
the MLPA? The Marine Protection Act (MLPA) is a state law that mandates
the creation of a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) along the
California coast. The KFACA is committed to working within the process
for MPAs which allow recreational fishing. Keep up to date on the MLPA
process at the KFACA website or at the state's MLPA Initiative Website:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/index.html |
|
January 2006 MLPA Update -
CenCal Closures on the Horizon
Friends,
Other kayak fishing launch sites and fishing areas are also under the
gun. South of Morro Bay, the Spooner’s Cove area in Montana de Oro State
Park near Point Buchon is in the cross-hairs. As tough as the coming closures will be to swallow, I believe kayak anglers could have done much worse. Several excellent spots appear safe. We’ll hang onto Santa Cruz, lower Big Sur, San Simeon, most of the Cambria area, and the San Luis Obispo Bay. The coming closures in the popular Monterey-Carmel area could be a sign of things to come down south. With few remote waters to close in out of the way areas, Southern California kayak anglers could still face painful losses. Fortunately our day of reckoning is at least a couple years off, so get out there and enjoy. In other news, Central California’s Coastside Fishing Club continues its legal battle to turn back special interest funding of state policy development. The practice has to be stopped, or soon special interests of all stripes will seize control of state agencies. Public policy should be publicly funded. The KFACA supports Coastside’s efforts. For more information, or to contribute to the cause go to www.coastsidefishingclub.com.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force, charged with implementing the MLPA, is mulling over five Marine Protected Area (MPA) network alternatives for the Central California study region (Pigeon Pt. to Pt. Conception). Forget about the proposal submitted by HOPE, an organization pushing for total closure of state waters in favor of sea otters; it has no chance. Kayak anglers who fish anywhere other than the Monterey / Carmel area should be able to live with the other four plans, although none of them are painless. The two main alternatives are the Angler’s Proposal and the Environmental Proposal. There are two others, the Hybrid Proposal which tries to find common ground between the Angler’s and Environmental plans, and one submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental interest group. With the exception of the Angler’s Proposal, kayak fishing in Monterey / Carmel would severely impacted.
You can access the proposals by clicking the link here: As explained in the Angler’s Proposal: The greatest concerns that kayak-based fishermen and spear-fishermen have are access and opportunity. Using an electronic mapping system (Topo), the general contours of the peninsula’s coastline have been measured. The tool also allowed the areas proposed by Packages 1, 2 and 3 to be compared, by making graphic determinations of how much opportunity currently exists versus how much would exist if any of these proposals were implemented. If adopted, Package 2 would result in a loss of approximately 78 percent of existing kayak based fishing and spearfishing opportunities between the Breakwater and Granite Point (measured linearly). Package 3 is identical to Package 2, except that it would leave a short section of Carmel Point open and would close a slightly smaller portion of Stillwater Cove, thus leaving open approximately one half linear mile more than Package 2. If adopted it would result in a loss of approximately 74 percent of existing opportunity. Although Package 3 has been promoted by its proponents as a “moderate compromise”, it is in fact quite extreme. In comparison, even Package 1 would result in a 36.4 percent reduction in opportunity for kayak-based fishermen and spear fishermen. Although this option still represents a high impact on consumptive recreational interests, it achieves better balance among the uses of historic user groups. The KFACA supports MPA Package 1, the Angler’s Proposal.
The Coastside Fishing Club’s lawsuit challenging the special interest funding of the rollout of the MLPA is still in the early stages. The defendants, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, the Department of Fish and Game, and the California Resources Agency have filed a motion to move the case out of Del Norte County to San Francisco. Coastside opposes the move. Arguments on the motion will be heard on February 17. To learn more about Coastside’s suit, or donate money to support their cause, visit www.coastsidefishingclub.com. |
|
November/December 2005 MLPA Update -
Positive
Steps? For the past year recreational anglers have been holding their breaths, waiting for a glimpse of what the MLPA Initiative might have in store for us. We know there will be fishing closures, but on what scale? The picture is finally beginning to come into focus. In September, the California Department of Fish and Game invited interested parties to submit proposals for a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Central California. Proposals flowed in from groups large and small, calling for anything from complete closure of state waters in the study area (Pigeon Point to Point Conception) to maintaining the status quo. Most noteworthy are those submitted by a couple of major environmental players, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Oceana. The NRDC has had tremendous influence over the roll-out of the MLPA Initiative to this point. Their proposal, while not perfect from a recreational angler’s point of view, is far from a doomsday scenario. In fact, it protects kayak fishing access in Carmel and Cambria within State Marine Parks. On the other hand, Central California kayak anglers might as well sell their boats if Oceana’s vision comes true. In the meantime, the Central California Regional Stakeholder Group has been busy crafting its own MPA proposal, which should probably be seen as the most likely outcome. Which will prevail, the “Fisher” or “Conservation” viewpoint? In other major news, the Coastside Fishing Club made good on its threat to take legal action to block the biased, pro-closure funding of the MLPA Initiative. Coastside is in for a tough fight, as the environmental groups they are challenging are flush with funds to defend the suit. If Coastside is to prevail, they will need help from the recreational fishing community. To learn more about Coastside’s suit, or donate money to support their cause, visit www.coastsidefishingclub.com.
Paul Lebowitz Coastside Will Have Its Day in Court: Pro-Closure MLPA Initiative Funding at Issue From the moment the MLPA Initiative was revived by a big shot of private money, suspicion has reigned within the fishing community that pro-closure forces were intent on buying their way to reserves. A major portion of the funds came from the Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation, a special interest organization generally believed to favor widespread closures. In August, Central and Northern California’s Coastside Fishing Club warned the state that the club would file suit to challenge the biased funding of the MLPA if the arrangement was not terminated. On November 10th Coastside made good on the threat. Bob Franko, Coastside Chairman of the Board, explained:
Today the Coastside Fishing Club filed a lawsuit in the
Superior Court for the County of Del Norte (Crescent City) against the
California Resources Agency, the Department of Fish and Game, and the
Resource Legacy Fund Foundation to stop special interest funding for the
promulgation of California regulations. In the case, we seek to stop the
flow of millions of dollars in funding from self-described
"environmental" groups for the implementation of the Marine Life
Protection Act. The case is not about the value or lack of value of the
MLPA, the MPAs it seeks to establish, or the well-meaning people on both
sides of this issue. Its target is solely the funding mechanism. To learn more about Coastside’s suit, or donate money to support their cause, visit www.coastsidefishingclub.com. They Want to Close What? Private Party Reserve Network Proposals Finally Go Public At long last rank and file recreational anglers have some idea of the scale of closures we face. The view comes from a reading of alternative MPA network proposals submitted by private groups at the invitation of the DFG. As anyone is welcome to submit a proposal of what waters in the Central California study area should be closed to meet the goals of the MLPA Initiative, the submissions vary drastically. For example, in a White Paper released earlier this year, the Coastside Fishing Club proposed that current and de facto closures (such as cow cod conservation areas and deep water rockfish closures) meet the statutory requirements of the MLPA Initiative. In other words, the status quo. Naturally, there are other organizations that would like nothing more than a total closure of state waters. One such group is Monterey’s Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment, which argues that protection of the sea otter merits locking down the first mile from shore over the entire study area. Neither Coastside’s nor Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment’s plans seem likely to come to pass. What, then, should we take more seriously? Proposals from two major environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Oceana, merit closer looks. The NRDC Plan – Good News for Kayak Anglers? The NRDC is a powerhouse of the environmental community. They’ve appeared to have had a strong influence on the development of the MLPA Initiative to this point. Their proposal should be taken very seriously. Chances are it is a realistic representation of what the Central California MPA network will look like. At first look, the NRDC proposal doesn’t look too bad. It certainly isn’t a doomsday scenario. The plan appears to respect recreational fishing as it doesn’t rely solely on massive reserves, and protects kayak fishing access in Carmel and Cambria. There is a nice variety of marine parklands and conservation areas in the mix, places where most or at least some fish species would be open to fishing. The full NRDC report is available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/comments/nrdc_101505.pdf. Let us know what you think of the NRDC proposal by sending us mail at news@kfaca.org. The NRDC plan calls for the following MPAs
1. Ano Nuevo SMR The centerpiece of the NRDC plan is the Big Sur SMR which would run from Pt. Sur about 22 miles south to Julia Pfieffer Burns State Park. The only kayak fishing access points on this remote stretch of shoreline are at Andrew Molera State Park (1 mile portage) and Pfieffer Beach (dangerous surf). A second large reserve is sited at likewise remote Point Sal. The biggest impacts on kayak anglers would be felt in the Monterey-Carmel area, where the area north of Lover’s Point would be closed as the Rickett’s SMR, as would the small offshore Cyrpress Pinnacles SMR in the Pebble Beach area. The Pacific Grove SMCA would allow recreational fishing for finfish. The NRDC, in recognition of the importance of Carmel Bay to kayak anglers, leaves the Carmel SMP open to recreational fishing. Continuing south, some kayak anglers could be impacted by the Piedras Blancas SMR, although the reserve does not appear to extend to San Simeon Cove (the NRDC has not provided a map). The Cambria SMR would also likely impact kayak anglers, although the adjacent Cambria SMP provides kayak fishing access. All in all, most area kayak anglers can probably live with the NRDC plan. It doesn’t threaten many of our most popular and reliable launch sites in the Central California region, and leaves us some remote and challenging water such as at lower Big Sur. What do you think? Please help us formulate the KFACA response by sending your comments to the KFACA at news@kfaca.org. The full NRDC report is available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/comments/nrdc_101505.pdf. Oceana Plan Targets Virtually Every Kayak Fishing Launch Site in CenCal. Unlike the NRDC plan, which protects popular kayak fishing access points, the Oceana proposal looks like it could be a kayak fishing killer. But before we go any farther, let’s address a point of confusion regarding Oceana’s report. Oceana didn’t use the state's MPA terminology (Reserve - full closure / Parkland - no commercial fishing / Conservation Area - additional regulations). Instead, their report identified areas that are ecologically Very Important / Important / Relatively Important. Are they equivalent to the state’s MPAs? One source within a recreational fishing advocacy group believes they are not. Instead, Oceana's proposals could equate to management recommendations not expected to get far. Furthermore, this source believes the NRDC proposal might be the worst we could expect. We should hope this assessment is correct. Oceana doesn’t explicitly say one way or the other. For a bit of clarity, let’s look at Oceana’s concluding remarks, taken from page 14 of their report: Implementation of these three layouts will allow comparison of overall regional strategies to meet multiple conservation objectives while maintaining opportunities for sustainable use in important ecological regions. Since these sites will have different levels of fishing regulations, it will enable the use of MPAs as reference sites for fisheries management. In conclusion, this preliminary proposal represents a systematic approach to identifying an improved network of Marine Protected Areas based on scientific principles and the best available information. We look forward to further contributing to the MLPA Initiative process by continuing to incorporate additional information into this proposal and participating in discussions with local stakeholders. The way I read it, Oceana intends the areas identified as ecologically Very Important / Important / Relatively Important to be considered as the basis for MPAs. If that is the case, Oceana’s proposal would impact every popular kayak fishing spot from Natural Bridges south to Morro Bay. About the only one that looks open without restriction is Spooner's Cove at Montana de Oro State Park south of Morro Bay. Their maps tell the story: Cambria area: www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/comments/oapp2ghi_101505.pdf Big Sur to San Simeon: www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/comments/oapp2ef_101505.pdf Point Sur area: www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/comments/oapp2cd_101505.pdf Monterey / Carmel / Santa Cruz / Moss Landing: www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/comments/oapp2b_101505.pdf Isolating the areas considered Very Important by Oceana, which can reasonably seen as areas proposed for closure, produces the following list:
Santa Cruz: areas directly east and west of Santa Cruz Harbor Closures on this scale would devastate kayak fishing in Central California. The KFACA is preparing a letter of opposition to the Oceana proposal. Read the Oceana proposal yourself at www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/comments/o_101505.pdf “Fisher” or “Conservation” Viewpoint to Rule at CenCal Stakeholder Group? The Central California Stakeholder Group is working on its own MPA network proposal for the Central California study area. According to a report posted on the Coastside website by Tom Mattusch, Coastside Political Coordinator, two competing proposals have the most chance of emerging from the process. The first, known as the Fisher’s Array, is supported by the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC). The CFC is composed of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), the Sportfishing Association of California (SAC), and about two dozen commercial fishing organizations. The CFC plan would place about 15 percent of the study area in MPAs. The competing Conservation proposal would protect 23 percent of the study area waters. The two plans are not yet available for review. Once they are posted on the DFG MLPA Initiative website, the KFACA will take a good look at them. |
|
September/October 2005 MLPA Update It’s been one ominous development after another for the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) these past few weeks. Most of the action has centered on the Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. The group is charged to produce a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) for state waters extending from Pigeon Point to Point Conception. DFG staff is threatening to force large-scale closures, independently of whatever the working group recommends. So what, is the Central Coast Working Group just for show? It sure looks like it, as DFG PR staff is mischaracterizing dissension within the Working Group as unanimous agreement. That’s bitter news for us, because the goals and objectives adopted by the Working Group couldn’t be worse for kayak anglers. More and more the process looks like it is racing towards a predetermined conclusion that will lock down many of our preferred fishing spots. And at this point, no help is on the way. According to a report published in the September 16 edition of Western Outdoor News, the DFG’s Nearshore Ecosystem Coordinator and Senior Policy Adviser to the MLPA, John Ugoretz, implied that if the MPA network recommended by the Central Coast Regional Working Group doesn’t result in a system of large no-take marine reserves, the DFG will force them through using the Nearshore Fishery Management Plan. Ugoretz also said that the DFG will use the MPA design guidelines specified by the MLPA Science Advisory Team (SAT). The SAT calls for reserves that extend from 3 to 12 or even more miles along the coast, with no more than 31 to 62 miles between reserves. These numbers are based on controversial theories of fish larval dispersion that aren’t universally accepted even within the SAT. DFG Invites Third Party Groups to Submit Alternative MPA Network Proposals In an email released on September 19, the DFG invited third party groups to submit alternative MPA network proposals. The Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (CCRSG) will be the primary source of alternative marine protected area proposals to the MLPA Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force, but the MLPA Initiative is an open process and it is possible others will submit MPA proposals to the task force and the CCRSG. Suggestions for single MPAs and groups of MPAs within the central coast region (Point Conception to Pigeon Point) are welcomed through October 15, 2005. The KFACA doesn’t have the resources or the necessary scientific acumen to submit an alternative proposal, however, we will comment on how the major proposals could impact our use patterns. Central Coast Regional Working Group Adopts Goals and Objectives – Unanimously? Not a Chance Kayak anglers were staggered earlier this month when the Central Coast Regional Working Group adopted the goals and objectives that will guide how MPAs are designed. Several goals and objectives point MPAs right at our heads. The DFG would have the public believe the Central Coast Regional Working Group unanimously agreed with the results. KFACA sources within the fishing community strongly deny the state’s glowing PR claim. Instead, the picture they paint is one of strong dissent from the fishing community, which was steamrolled in a series of motions. It seems the architects of the Working Group packed the panel with pro-closure representatives. In other words, the concerns of the recreational fishing community can be disregarded without imperiling the process. We’d have fairer odds with the carnies on the midway. Excerpts from the Adopted Provisional Regional Goals and Objectives Package: To the extent possible, site MPAs adjacent to terrestrial federal, state, county, or city parks, marine laboratories, or other "eyes on the water" to facilitate management, enforcement, and monitoring. Virtually any beach launch is within a park of some kind. Include within MPAs the protected lee of major headlands that may act as collection points for water and larvae. Many of our most sheltered beach launches and fishing grounds are within the protected lees of major headlands such as Big Sur’s Lopez Point. Ensure some MPAs are close to population centers and research and education institutions and include areas of traditional nonconsumptive recreational use and are accessible for recreational, educational, and study opportunities. We live in population centers too. Include within MPAs the following habitat types: estuaries, heads of submarine canyons, pinnacles, upwelling centers, and larval retention areas. Places MPAs in some of the most productive areas for fishing. Posters at the NorCalKayakAnglers.com website fear the goals and objectives will result in closures near Moss Landing, in Monterey Bay, and in Carmel Bay. At the next meeting of the Central Coast Regional Working Group (October 5-6 in Monterey), the Group will break out the maps and start debating where to place MPAs. Third party plans may also be made public. We’ll be watching with bated breath. Coastside’s Legal Challenge to Biased Private MLPA Funding Still Pending The Coastside Fishing Club, a large and influential organization in Central and Northern California, sent a letter to the state on August 18 that challenges the MLPA funding mechanism. A large portion of the funds come from a private source, the Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation, a special interest organization generally believed to favor widespread closures. Since this arrangement was announced, plenty of people have wondered if the RLTFF is buying undue influence over the rollout of the MLPA. In their August 18 letter, an attorney for Coastside informs the state that the club will file suit to challenge special interest funding of the MLPA if the arrangement is not terminated within ten days. The fishing community is still waiting for Coastside to make its move. Paul Lebowitz |
|
Gloomy
Outlook for Saltwater Anglers Coastside Fishing Club Moving Toward Legal Challenge to MLPA Funding
Central
California Working Group Labors On In Cone of Silence Although the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) hasn’t been front page news recently, the process that will result in a statewide network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) continues to unfold at blinding speed. Only now, the process appears more and more like a rigged game heading for a pre-determined conclusion that will mean massive closures of our most productive waters.
Master Plan Framework Rubber-Stamped The first bit of news was the August 18 adoption of the MLPA Master Plan Framework by the California Fish & Game Commission. It was a notable step as the Commission will have the final say on the implementation of the eventual MPA network. The Framework has continued to evolve since it was deemed “finished” by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force. Many in the fishing community felt that prior versions of the Framework were heavily biased towards closures.
Although some changes were made to reduce the bias towards marine reserves that has been written into the document by interest groups in favor of massive closures, the Framework still appears to dramatically exceed the requirements of the MLPA law. That the Commission essentially rubber-stamped the flawed document is an ominous sign for the fishing community. For those who have been holding out hope that the Commission would be a final level playing field, this is a sad day. As the MLPA process continues it appears increasingly likely that the angling community will have to look for fairness in the court system. Which brings us to the next bit of news.
Coastside Threatens Legal Action Against Biased Private Funding of MLPA The Coastside Fishing Club, a large and influential organization in Central and Northern California, sent a letter to the state on August 18 that challenges the MLPA funding mechanism. A large portion of the funds come from a private source, the Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation, a special interest organization generally believed to favor widespread closures. Since this arrangement was announced, plenty of people have wondered if the RLTFF is buying undue influence over the rollout of the MLPA. In their August 18 letter, an attorney for Coastside informs the state that the club will file suit to challenge special interest funding of the MLPA if the arrangement is not terminated within ten days. The KFACA will update this important development as more information becomes available.
News “Black Hole” Surrounds Local Working Group Finally, the Central Coast Local Working Group, a committee of disparate stakeholders, continues to work toward development of an MPA network for state waters from Pigeon Point to Point Conception. Very little information on the progress of the work has been available in the mainstream or even fishing press – which seems to be a deliberate development.
A source familiar with the meetings recently reported to the KFACA that the process is fatally rushed. With the December 2005 deadline to produce a “preferred alternative” network of MPAs rapidly approaching, the Working Group, which is heavily dominated by interests in favor of widespread fishing closures, hasn’t moved beyond arguing about goals and standards for the MPAs. Which means the group will have almost no time at all to get into the nitty-gritty of drafting lines on the map. This situation is likely to favor big-money groups which want big reserves.
Stand by friends. The time to mobilize the fishing community is almost at hand.
Paul Lebowitz |
|
May/June 2005 - Marine Life Protection Act Update On May 16th the MLPA
Initiative staff and the Department of Fish and Game announced the
membership of the Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group. This group,
working with a professional mediator, will labor to produce the state’s
first network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) under the aegis of the
MLPA. The MPAs will be located along a broad stretch of the California
coastline ranging from Pigeon Point to Point Conception. |
|
3/22/05 - KFACA Speaks at the Inaugural Meeting of CKA A friendly
group of kayak anglers gathered in San Diego the evening of March 22nd for
the first meeting of California Kayak Anglers (CKA). CKA organizer Matt
Moyer cordially invited the
KFACA to address the “non-club.”
KFACA
Director Paul Lebowitz led off the meeting with a speech that warned of
looming fishing closures under the aegis of the Marine Life Protection Act
(MLPA). Lebowitz urged the crowd to get politically involved, then closed
with a hopeful vision of how the MLPA could benefit the kayak fishing
community. As the meeting wound down, CKA surprised the
KFACA with the
proceeds of the evening’s raffle. The raffle prizes were provided by John
Conniff and Shane Slaughter of the Islander
(www.islandersportfishing.com), and Mag Bay Outfitters
(www.magbayoutfitters.com). The
KFACA gratefully acknowledges their
support and generosity. The donations will help the
KFACA attend important
upcoming MLPA hearings. Lebowitz’s speech is provided below: |
|
March 3rd, 2005 - Anglers' Caucus at Fred Hall Long Beach
300 concerned anglers
turned out to hear a distinguished lineup of speakers at the Angler’s
Caucus in Long Beach. The
KFACA was well represented. The presenters
included: Mike Chrisman, Resources Secretary; Ryan Broddrick, Director
Department of Fish and Game; Phil Isenberg, Chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon
Task Force; Dr Rebecca Lent, NOAA Fisheries; Don Hansen, Chair of the
Pacific Fisheries Management Counsel; David Pfieffer, President of Shimano
USA; Bill Shipp, Founder of United Anglers and owner of AFTCO fishing; Bob
Fletcher of the Sportfishing Association of California (SAC); Frank
LoPreste, San Diego Sportfishing Fleet; Tim Alpers, Alpers Trout Ranch;
Jim Martin, Conservation Director for Berkeley/Pure Fishing; Mike Nussman,
President and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association; Tom Raftican
of United Anglers of Southern California; and Chris Hall of Coastside
Fishing Club. |
|
March 2005 - Marine Life Protection Act Update
The MLPA process
stumbled this month as too few Blue Ribbon Task Force members made the
March meeting to form a quorum. Selection of a Central Coast Study Area
was postponed until the Los Angeles April 11-12 meeting. The Study Area
will be the first to go through the Marine Protected Area (MPA) design
process. |
|
Hendrickson Terminated *Check out the Article: Is the Sky Really Falling? |
|
February 2005 - Marine Life Protection Act Update The MLPA process continues to rush forward at blinding speed. New public workshops have been scheduled for February 15-17 in Bodega Bay, Santa Cruz, and Morro Bay respectively. These stakeholders’ workshops will help determine the central coast study region. More information about the meetings is available at www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/meetings.html#public. Ten alternatives are currently under consideration: Pt. Arena to Pt Ano Nuevo, Bodega Head to Cambria, Pt Reyes to Pt Sur, Golden Gate to Pt Lobos, Golden Gate to Pt Sur, Pigeon Pt to Lopez Pt, Pt Ano Nuevo to Pt Sur, Pt Ano Nuevo to Pt Conception, Pt Sur to Pt Conception, Lopez Pt to Pt Conception
According to Dan Sleeter
of Coastside Fishing Club (www.coastsidefishingclub.com),
on February 11th the Science Advisory Team voted in favor of
the following four options (total votes): |
