PDA

View Full Version : CA MPAs Passed!


masman
10-24-2002, 12:52 PM
This is bad news indeed. For SoCal anglers, this is like saying you can't fish the Vineyard, or Stellwagen Bank. It will be a crushing blow to angling-based businesses, and place huge ammounts of pressure on the areas not off limits. And watch out, 'cause MPAs are headed for New England!



California Bans Recreational Fishing in Channel Islands

(Alexandria, VA) In what many anglers fear may be the first in a series of sweeping nationwide closures, yesterday California Governor Gray Davis dismissed the concerns of anglers and scientists by slamming the door on some of the most popular recreational fishing areas in Southern California.



?We all have an interest in seeing healthy fish, especially anglers,? said Mike Nussman, President and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. ?The sportfishing community has long supported focused closures as part of a larger management strategy, but this single-minded philosophy of banning public access absent any scientific or economic merit is misguided.?



Under a decision announced late yesterday at a meeting of the California Fish and Game Commission in Santa Barbara, 175 square miles of coastal waters surrounding the Channel Islands, equaling about 30 percent of Southern California?s best fishing areas, will be placed permanently off-limits (including catch and release fishing). Not only will thousands of people in the region no longer be able to pursue America?s most popular outdoor leisure time sport, but local charter boats, hotels, restaurants and other businesses that rely on angler dollars will suffer. Annual losses in retail sales due to the closures may reach $50 million according to a recent analysis by Southwick Associates, a leading natural resource economic consulting firm.



California is second only to Florida in the number of anglers and the amount of money spent on fishing. More than 2.4 million people in California spend $2.38 billion on recreational fishing each year. In excess of 43,000 jobs and $60 million in state tax revenue is tied to recreational fishing according to an American Sportfishing Association analysis of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data.



Anglers are concerned that California may be only the first domino to fall, triggering a broader movement towards unnecessary bans of recreational fishing. Further closures are likely in California and similar efforts are underway in other coastal states including Oregon, Massachusetts and Florida. These efforts, aggressively pushed by several environmental activist organizations, have moved forward despite concerns raised by anglers, conservation groups, respected outdoor journalists, and scientists.



Determined not to allow the California decision to set precedent, anglers and conservation organizations have united to launch the Freedom to Fish campaign. It is a reflection of their shared interest in advancing marine management programs based on sound science and ensuring angler access when recreational fishing is not jeopardizing fish populations. Led nationally by the American Sportfishing Association, the group of supporters includes B.A.S.S./ESPN, Coastal Conservation Association, International Game Fish Association, Jersey Coast Anglers Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Recreational Fishing Alliance, Sportfishing Association of California, and United Anglers of Southern California. With a combined membership of over a million, these groups worked with the ASA to craft the Freedom To Fish Act, now pending in Congress, and helped mobilize more than 5,000 angler letters petitioning Congress for its passage.



?With Atlantic striped bass, redfish, white seabass, and many other sportfish, anglers have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice fishing access or technique when it was necessary to recover fish populations,? Nussman said. ?What we?re seeing now is the theoretical fervor for marine protected areas getting far ahead of the scientific evidence to support such measures.?



Numerous independent authorities on fisheries management have expressed unease over the lack of any empirical evidence in support of marine protected areas and disputed the environmentalists? claim that anglers would benefit from massive closures (see attachement). In findings presented earlier this year to the California Fish and Game Commission, Dr. Robert Shipp, an authority on fisheries management and Marine Sciences Chair at the University of South Alabama, noted that better implementation of existing regulations would be a more common-sense method for recovering depressed fish populations.



Characterizing yesterday?s decision on the Channel Islands, Tom Raftican, president of the popular angler organization, United Anglers of Southern California said, ?the Commission went blasting ahead with a ready, fire, aim approach? California anglers have just been knocked flat by the train leaving the station. Other states need to take notice because they?re next.?



To join the Freedom To Fish campaign to protect fish and citizens opportunity to go fishing, please visit www.FreedomToFish.org.

John Wade
10-25-2002, 01:26 PM
________________________________________________
We all have an interest in seeing healthy fish, especially anglers,? said Mike Nussman, President and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. ?The sportfishing community has long supported focused closures as part of a larger management strategy, but this single-minded philosophy of banning public access absent any scientific or economic merit is misguided.?
__________________________________________________


See what you get for "working with" these folks? Time to fight back-not discuss. Freedom to Fish Act is looking more important every day.
JW

NoAgenda
10-29-2002, 11:21 PM
Is there any particular reason why it is acceptable and appropriate to destroy and decimate businesses that rely on commercial fish landings, while at the same time it is not acceptable to destroy and decimate the businesses that rely on revenue from recreational fishing? Is it because one sector spends more money to catch one fish (often multiple times), before it dies? Or is it because flies/lead sinkers/jigs/lost hooks, monofiliament, anchors etc./oil & discharged and untreated sewage have no environmental effects?

What about the hundreds/thousands of anglers that pursue and land enough tuna to pay for their expensive sport, but use the same gear types and have the same expenditures as purely recreational anglers? Sometimes the distinctions become blurry.

Onshore
10-30-2002, 05:50 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NoAgenda
[B]Is there any particular reason why it is acceptable and appropriate to destroy and decimate businesses that rely on commercial fish landings, while at the same time it is not acceptable to destroy and decimate the businesses that rely on revenue from recreational fishing?

I don't see anything in the thread, above that even hints at what you are talking about. No one has even mentioned commercial fishermen and their industry. I think most of us are just as sad to see their livlihood imperiled as we are to see our sport threatened.

Bill Hubbard

KingBass03993
12-11-2003, 07:58 PM
Why dont you like MPA's!!!! Think of it like this they give you more fish to fish. You can all ways fish somewhere else they can't can't MPA the whole ocean!!!! And we all know fish stocks are tilting. Step out of the shadow of denial that you're in and step into the warm light of MPA's. It wont kill our industry it can only help it, by fighting MPA's we're only hurting our industry even more. MPA's get a thumbs-up from me.

Ray
12-11-2003, 08:15 PM
Interesting Stellwagon Bank was mentioned.....it's an MPA. Not all include a ban on fishing.

John Wade
12-12-2003, 09:15 AM
Guys, if you think the issue is fish, you are fooling yourselves. The issue is Federal Government control of land, or in this case, water. Ever heard Lenin's term "useful idiot"?

John Wade
12-14-2003, 06:36 AM
Henry Lamb (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36108)
Here is a guy that is hip to so-called MPAs. If you want to be truly knowledgeabe on the subject of MPAs, this is the place to start!

C. GIll
12-14-2003, 04:57 PM
I'll go with the Nature Conservancy over Mr. Lamb, thanks. I don't think MPA's are a big government/socialist conspiracy and I don't think Lamb is a "conservationist," at least not by my defintion of the word.

Given President Bush's anti enviroment/ pro development agenda, I think organizations like the Nature Conservancy and The National Wildlife Federation, are more important than ever.

John Wade
12-15-2003, 03:14 PM
You would not have that opinion if you had happen to you what happened to my in-laws 7 years ago. Upon the sale of a large piece of very expensive property, my in-laws were informed that an "endangered" type of field mouse as well as an "endagered" type of butterfly occupied the property. As such, the Feds would not allow the property to be divided. They sold the property for 25 percent more than they bought it for-in 1967!!!!
If this was a town zoning issue, I would understand. However, the town was on Joe's side!
We set rules in a Constitution many years ago to make sure that our leaders could not take our propery without JUST COMPENSATION. How would you like these people to walk into your home and throw you out of it because of a G D mouse? I assure you, they have no problem doing it if it suits their agenda.
I am for conservation of our land and water, but never at the expense of my liberty. The nutballs @ EPA have already shown me that THEIR idea of liberty is far more important than mine. Don't sit around and wait for it to happen to you because it will.
You can't call Henry Lamb a conspiracy type when the stuff he preaches has happened to your very own family!

flatts1
12-16-2003, 02:06 PM
Wow John. That's a total bummer. I think since then the law has been chaged because the courts found that the EPA was effectively "taking" peoples land by desgnating them for public uses without compensating the owners.

Later,
Mike