Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 05:26:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent Topics

[Today at 05:07:22 AM]

[March 27, 2024, 10:53:01 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 08:00:55 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 07:25:42 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 07:05:39 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 04:18:57 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 12:35:34 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 11:18:23 AM]

[March 26, 2024, 07:45:07 PM]

[March 26, 2024, 06:19:03 PM]

[March 26, 2024, 05:47:06 PM]

[March 25, 2024, 07:10:08 PM]

[March 25, 2024, 03:17:35 PM]

Support NCKA

Support the site by making a donation.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rick

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1
CA Regulations / Re: Upcoming meetings about new MPAs
« on: March 05, 2024, 07:55:18 AM »
Good stuff, Jim. One correction for the allwaters link is that the contents of the petitions won't actually be discussed at the March 19 Marine Resources Committee meeting in San Clemente, they will only be discussing the Department's process to review the petitions.
Quote
Marine protected area (MPA) regulation change petitions
Receive and discuss Department-proposed approach to the review and evaluation of
petitions for MPA regulation changes following the 2022 decadal management review of
the MPA network and management program.

The important discussion on the contents of the petitions will likely be on the agenda at the July 18 Marine Resources Committee meeting in Santa Rosa.

2
CA Regulations / Re: Email F&G Commission to oppose MPA expansion petitions
« on: February 05, 2024, 07:45:52 PM »
I'm also opposed expanding Point Buchon north. I don't fish there but I think Montana de Oro is one of the few put-ins on the Central Coast.

Fortunately that one proposes expanding it north by only ~100 yards to the point proper and not all the way into MDO as I understand it. Still, you'd be bummed if your honey hole was right off those wash rocks.

3
CA Regulations / Re: Email F&G Commission to oppose MPA expansion petitions
« on: February 03, 2024, 04:00:17 PM »
If I'm reading it correctly, they do say that they are "willing to consider" a Pleasure Point SMCA that would allow hook-and-line and spear fishing. If so, that might not be so bad.

Agreed, not the end of the world, but not great (especially since in this decadal review there were many petitions to re-designate SMCAs as SMRs). That said, I'm cautiously optimistic many of these petitions will be denied.

Where there any proposals to reduce MPA’s?  If not, why not?  We should draft some.  Maybe too late for this round, but some time in the future.

-Allen

None that reduce per se, just a few that propose modifying allowed take (e.g. open up Bodega Head to commercial salmon). I think since 30x30 is the guiding initiative now (monotonically increasing), it would be a hard sell to even "trade" new MPAs for reopening existing MPAs but keeping the same net acreage/area, let alone reduce the total acreage/area.

IIRC I think Wayne Kotow (Coastal Conservation Association) actually used this idea as a bargaining chip of sorts when the MPA Decadal Management Review and 30x30 came to the table, essentially telling the Commission something like: "Look, I could announce to every sportfishing group that the 30x30 Initiative and MPA Decadal Management Review are coming to close the rest of CA to fishing, riling everyone up to drag their heels and inundate the process with a flood of petitions to re-open everything... OR everyone can cooperate and act in good faith to legitimately improve the MPA system in a manner that's fair to all stakeholders."

4
CA Regulations / Email F&G Commission to oppose MPA expansion petitions
« on: February 02, 2024, 09:12:06 AM »
Now is your chance to email the F&G Commission to oppose several of the MPA decadal review petitions. You have until February 9 to ensure that the Commissioners have a chance to read your letter prior to the February 14/15 meeting.

Petitions (any of those ending in MPA, e.g. 2023-23MPA):
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=201924&inline

Email: fgc@fgc.ca.gov

Email format:
1. State your name, area of residence and whom representing.
2. State your major points first.
3. Briefly support major points with factual data, rationale, and/or logic.
4. Conclude with a brief summary of your major points.

Particularly bad petitions relevant to norcal/socal kayak, most important in bold IMO:

2023-23MPA: This petition will effectively ban fishing and spearfishing from the entire north side of the Monterey Peninsula by converting existing SMCAs to no-take SMRs. These SMCAs provide important nearshore opportunities for various consumptive stakeholders. The petitioner, as he attempted in a prior petition rejected by FGC (petition 2023-02), incorrectly claims eliminating finfish take will benefit kelp. This petition is not grounded in scientific reasoning or sound fisheries management and should be rejected.

2023-24MPA: This petition will effectively ban fishing, spearfishing, and all other take in the entirety of Laguna Beach. The petitioner cites ease of enforcement and anecdotal overharvesting and substrate degradation as rationale. This is unfair to consumptive stakeholders, essentially saying "it is too hard for city enforcement to learn the different regulations between different areas, so we want to impose a blanket ban on all consumptive stakeholders rather than addressing the root problem of educating the public." Lazy.

2023-26MPA: This petition aims to protect intertidal habitat and simplify enforcement but will effectively ban lobster diving from the productive reef at the southern end of Cardiff State Beach. This petition should be rejected and the petitioner advised to propose a smaller, intertidal-take-specific MPA in its place if that truly is the concern.

2023-29MPA: This petition will effectively ban all take off Carpinteria in Santa Barbara County. This is a popular and important nearshore access opportunity for low impact recreation like lobster diving, which is limited to shallow reefs like those found here.

2023-32MPA: This petition will severely limit shore angling opportunities and some kayak opportunity off the Marin coastline by expanding Duxbury Reef SMCA outward and northward and converting to SMR for easier enforcement.

2023-33MPA: This petition will severely limit consumptive stakeholder opportunities in several important kelp forests in Southern and Central California. It is inappropriate for a single petition to propose changes to seven unrelated areas; this petition should be split into seven distinct petitions to weigh stakeholder input for each specific area. The petition cites warm water events and pollution as threats to kelp forests, yet expanding MPA areas do nothing to mitigate these threats. Particularly:
  • Expanding Natural Bridges SMR (and intertidal-focused MPA) to 3nm offshore will eliminate large swaths of groundfish and salmon opportunity from anglers, completely unrelated to the inshore kelp.
  • Designating the Pleasure Point SMR as proposed will result in divers and anglers losing access to important inshore reefs and kelp in eastern Santa Cruz County.


5
West Coast Archery Shop in Petaluma has an indoor range and rents recurves and does lessons.

Birds Landing Sporting Clays in the Suisun Marsh rents shotguns. I don't think they do lessons though.


6
General Talk / Re: Looking for Pig heads in the area
« on: January 05, 2024, 08:57:18 PM »
You can probably pick a couple up from Markegard Family Grass Fed on the peninsula. My fianceé used to work for them and she says they usually had them in inventory since they weren't a super popular item. You'd probably have to call/email them because they're not listed in their catalog.
https://www.markegardfamily.com/

I would imagine any old school carniceria would have them handy. When do you need them? I can do an NCKA express from Bud's to the peninsula tomorrow if they have them in stock.

7
CA Regulations / Re: Dec 14 FGC Meeting - MPA Proposals
« on: December 20, 2023, 05:05:57 PM »
That doc seems to be now restricted and requires a user/password.   :smt011

-Allen

The doc is back online now. I emailed them this morning and they told me they had initially missed redacting some PII.

8
Any more info on where these MPA speakers are coming from?  Which group(s)?

-Allen

You can view the Item 22 speakers here from 03:50 to 04:55.
https://cal-span.org/meeting/cfg_20231214/

You can see the MPA adpative management petitions received in this doc. There are some 20 of them, some nothing-burgers, some some alarming land grabs or no-take-conversions. The backing groups vary by region and petition. Some propose size-able expansions, some are small expansions because of enforcement difficulty/laziness.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=218156&inline

Notable restrictive norcal/cencal-relevant petition items:
  • New SMR or SMCA along Pleasure Point (2023-33MPA)
  • Extending Natural Bridges SMR three miles offshore (2023-33MPA)
  • Convert Ed Ricketts to no-take SMR (2023-23MPA)
  • Convert Pacific Grove Marine Gardens to no-take SMR (2023-23MPA)
  • New Tankers Reef SMR (2023-23MPA)
  • Convert Drakes Estero SMCA to no-take SMR (2023-31MPA)
  • Expand Duxbury SMCA northwest and southeast and/or convert to no-take SMR (2023-32MPA)
  • Limit hoop types, number of hoops, crab limits in Big River SMCA (2023-30MPA)

Notable restrictive socal petition items:
  • Convert Anacapa SMCA to SMR (2023-27MPA)
  • New SMR at Carpineria (2023-29MPA)
  • Expand Pt Dume and Cabrillo SMRs (2023-33MPA)

Surely I missed some.

I'm confident many of them will be rightfully rejected. As Mark noted, VP Zavaleta remarked that she was skeptical of the pushes for large expansions and and no-take conversions. She went on to highlight that some of the petitions inaccurately summarized the studies cited in order to justify a non-consumptive narrative. She warned petitioners that she will be scrutinizing the petition and attached literature carefully. In general, IMO, the current commission is sympathetic to consumptive stakeholders and doesn't really put up with the "we the majority don't like that you the minority harvest fish/wildlife and think that nature should exist under a glass dome" perspective.

The Monterey-specific petition 2023-23MPA is driven by Keith Rootsaert with the Giant Kelp Restoration Project (https://g2kr.com/) on the very misguided belief that take of bottomfish interferes with kelp recovery (I'll concede that take of wolf eel and sheephead probably do). He tried to petition the commission to ban nearshore rockfishing in < 100fow earlier this year, and the department's recommended the commission reject the petition because it had no basis in scientific reality. I expect the same for 2023-23MPA.

Those MPA petitions will up for action at the February 2024 commission meeting in Sac. You can and should comment in person/virtually then, or a couple weeks beforehand with a letter. The commission will most likely refer them to the department for further vetting but it would be cool if they rejected some outright.

9
General Talk / Re: Beef and Pork Fat for Crabing
« on: November 17, 2023, 08:08:06 PM »
Stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

10
You can smash as many as you want in Caspar Cove per Title 14 § 29.06 (d)(1). And no one really cares if you smash your 35 else where. Call it chumming/baiting for greenlings or something. No warden is gonna cite you for that. They've got more important stuff to do.

11
CA Regulations / Re: Oct 11, San Jose FGC Meeting - Groundfish Petition
« on: October 11, 2023, 09:51:47 AM »
Only caught some of the general comment before work. Mark L did a great job speaking and made a compelling comment. The Fresh and Salty folks just kind of bumbled around for two minutes and didn’t really get their points across clearly.

12
CA Regulations / Re: Bullfrog Hunting
« on: October 11, 2023, 08:08:56 AM »
Do you fish for them during day time?
I have done frog gigging during night time.

You can catch them H&L during daylight hours for sure. They are more active at night though.

13
CA Regulations / Re: Oct 11, San Jose FGC Meeting - Groundfish Petition
« on: October 06, 2023, 02:21:06 PM »
The petition will be received under agenda item 25A "REGULATION CHANGE PETITIONS (MARINE)" which will probably be on day two, October 12. You can still comment during agenda item 2 "General public comment for items not on the agenda" on day one but they will probably get pissed off and tell speakers to simply +1 what a prior speaker said instead of soap boxing for the full minute since it will add two hours to the meeting otherwise.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=216474&inline

14
For Sale / Re: Garage sale
« on: September 10, 2023, 08:22:22 PM »
Quick, before Harold realizes what's happening  :smt003

15
CA Regulations / Re: RF Reg. Petition - Rockfish Nearshore Draft Petition
« on: September 06, 2023, 05:06:33 PM »
You will not be commenting on the petition October 11-12, at least for action to be taken. The Commission will merely receive the petition and punt it for action/consideration in December in San Diego (or later), if it is received by staff September 27, 5:00 PM or earlier.

You had better submit the petition ASAP before people jump the the gun and start sending emails that don't map to a submitted petition.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
anything