kayaks have to be 1000 feet from shore?

Found this letter from the Executive Director of Oceanic Society to the MLPA which related to the 1000 ft boat access restrictions for Farallon Islands.  Nothing about kayak restriction from shore so far!

OCEANIC SOCIETYQUARTERS
35 N, FORT MASON SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123
USADecember 9, 2007

To: MLPA Initiative Stakeholder Committee

RE: Farallon Islands Boat Access Restrictions

The Oceanic Society, a nonprofit marine conservation organization, requests that the MLPA Committee consider the following comments when addressing Farallon Islands Bird/Mammal Disturbance Issues or when considering any change in current U.S. Fish and Wildlife boat approach restrictions. Established in 1972, the nonprofit Oceanic Society’s purpose is to protect endangeredwildlife and preserve threatened marine habitats worldwide. The Society’s mission is primarily accomplished through the creation of protected natural areas, supported and sustained through scientific research. Our approach to environmental protection includes fostering a conservation ethic. Our educational Farallon Islands boat trips serve as a platform for achieving that goal. The Society pioneered trips for the public to the Farallon Islands in 1984 and has offered themon an annual, weekly basis from May through November. Groups such as the American Association of Geographers, Smithsonian, Girls Scouts, and Point Reyes Bird Observatory have cosponsored this educational opportunity. Our interpretative staff includes professional wildlife biologists and educators frominstitutions such as the California Academy of Sciences, the Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association, and the East Bay Regional Park District. Through their collective experience, they have shaped the interpretive program and worked with boat captains to avoid any potential disturbance. Please consider our educators and biologists comments regarding changing minimum access standards, from the current U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service boat restrictions of 300 feet of most of the shoreline of the Farallon Islands, in relation to their ability to teach and foster a conservation ethic: MLPA Committee Comments December 10, 2007 “The extended limits would substantially change the interpretive program. In particular, it would impact members of the general public without binoculars. These are often the people who have the least practical experience with nature observation. Fundamentally, our approach is to foster a conservation ethic among the public by showing them the wildlife resources. For the less-than-experienced, it will be harder to develop an appreciation for the resources if they cannot see them well. When at the SEFI, I mainly do “directed observation” rather than lecturing. The balance between the two with the new restriction would be pushed in the direction of lecturing as opposed to direct observation. I would like to see the rationale for any suggested change in order to make an informed comment. Although I am a Certified Wildlife Biologist with over 25 years of experience leading nature trips to the Farallones (as well as spending time on the island as a research volunteer), I do not have any data on disturbance reactions of the wildlife. Anecdotally, I have not observed any adverse impacts from the 300-foot buffer. However, if data are available, I would like to review them. I believe that a meaningful interpretive program could be achieved even with a 1000-foot buffer. However, the immediacy of the experience is greater with the smaller buffer. And the quality of the experience, I believe, helps foster a conservation ethic among the participants.” “I think the current U.S.F&W standards are appropriate. My teaching ability would be compromised if the access restriction was extended to 1,000 feet.” “Primarily, it will limit the public’s ability to see Steller sea lions and N. fur seals. I feel the 300-ft limit is sufficient to protect wildlife at SEFI, and extending this zone is unnecessary. I believe the problem is that some boats do not respect the 300-ft limit. I’ve repeatedly observed boats coming within less than 300 ft from shore even when wildlife onshore are showing clear sings of disturbance (i.e. heads raised, head bobbing, fluttering, etc).” “Currently the interpretive program is based on what we see --- at 1000 feet we will not be able to see the concentration of birds or any of the bird behavior and therefore can not point out any of this. Therefore, the information would focus on what you can’t see. It is much more rewarding to show people the “actual”, the “real life” – seeing the numbers of birds on the islands helps to reinforce the message about conservation of a sensitive area. We are able to get that message across now with the current restrictions --- we mention why we can’t go to certain areas and show pictures of the animals that are breeding in those areas i.e. Steller sea lions, Fur seals. With a 1000 feet limit, I would have to resort to using laminated pictures of what you can not see. This will definitely change the quality of the trip. There would be no “wow” moment at seeing thousands of murres shoulder to shoulder surrounded by the tower nests of Brandt’s cormorants. Based on my experience with the captains, 300 feet is sufficient. The naturalists and the captains work together to insure that we approach all wildlife with caution, that we do not use the PA system or shout when close to the rocks, and share experience on how to work around the islands. I have worked for the MLPA Committee Comments December 10, 2007 National Park Service on a winter bird census for 10 years. The census takes place on Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay. Over a million visitors a year come to the island which has a population of over 100 breeding seabirds nests (including Western Gull, Brandt Cormorant). We have not seen a reduction in nesting by these 2 species due to disturbance of people walking by or talking/shouting around their nest sites. This has been documented by the PRBO biologists who annually monitor the nest sites. I have been working on the Oceanic Farallon Island trips since the late 1980s and have not seen any obvious signs of stress by the sea lions or birds when we approach in a cautious slow manner. Plus, I have often asked biologists on the island if they think our boats are disturbing the wildlife: they have repeatedly reassured us that we were not a threat. Therefore, from my many years of observation I do not think that new restrictions are warranted. “ The Oceanic Society supports the MLPA Intiative as well as enhanced protections for marine wildlife. Based on our experience, we believe current restrictions are adequate unless there is conclusive data to support an extended access distance to the Farallon Islands is necessary to protect the integrity of seabird colonies and pinniped haul outs. We recommend a study be conducted at the Farallon Islands that specifically looks at questions of disturbance. We support the concept of adaptive management including reassessing potential disturbance on a consistent basis. We also recommend that outside funding be appropriated for enforcement of current restrictions. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Birgit Winning
Executive Director Oceanic Society

I thought the Capitola Boat guys confirmed only motorized vessels are bound to the 1000ft-from-shore-rule.

Actually, they reported another incident yesterday with the comment:

"Interesting footnote: the park rangers actually came down on these guys as well. Apparently the 1000 foot rule also applies to pretty much anyone who’s using hooks."
http://capitolaboatandbait.com/2009/08/09/capitola-the-spirit-of-the-law-is-no-excuse

So, maybe it's not a question of watercraft but the act of fishing? Though, I can't recall seeing the rangers harass surf fishers at New Brighton. 

5 bonus pts for anybody who can ID the 2 highliners in that Cap report! 

Boy Mr. Xfactor really knows how to read that place now doesnt he!!

Sailfish thank for finding that letter.  It refers to a wildlife protection buffer, not a generic buffer if I read it right.

Been making a few calls today.  After a day like this, you feel like telling the state to go to hell.  But I played nice.  At any rate, this is what I have found so far.  The CA boating laws do not address this at all.  According to Mike Sotelo the states regulation contact, the state allows you to come up to the high tide water line even in a PB.  Cities, counties and park districts can make their own rules.  So for example the city of santa cruz has specific ordinances not allowing kayak lauches.

State parks puts you in a phone loop.  Each number doesnt let you leave a message, and defaults to the info line, which doesnt answer your questions.  The supervising ranger's phone does the same.  So I called a guy who would collect money, the special permits guy.  He gave me two cool pieces of info.  One, the number to the state park lifeguard HQ as they run the water part of the coast.  2, he said the state park ends at the water.  So technically, the ranger has no jurisdiction on the water.  The lifeguards do.  Put in that call and still waiting to hear back.  Getting closer to an answer.

oh and ya baby, Ken is a fishing GOD

he said the state park ends at the water.  So technically, the ranger has no jurisdiction on the water.  The lifeguards do.  Put in that call and still waiting to hear back.  Getting closer to an answer.

I cannot imagine a city lifeguard having concurrent OTW jurisdiction with CG, DFG, other state agency. 

But at Cowell's the lifeguards are totally cool with you launching/ landing your craft to the north of the lifeguard tower by west cliff to avoid the people in the surfzone.  I've never been told I could NOT launch or land, only that I had to launch to the north.

And yes, if some ranger was on shore harassing me while i yakked in the surf zone, i'd totally give him/her the shine.

I cannot imagine a city lifeguard having concurrent OTW jurisdiction with CG, DFG, other state agency. 

According to the State Parks guy, the lifeguards in question are CA State Park Lifeguards. 

I got to admit that normally I would blow this off, but I had my kid with me and its hard for me to teach him to respect the law if I blow it off.  I just want to see if the guy was being super cautious or if this really is true.

I was at SC pier, and tried to launch after landing on the north side beach after lunch.  A yioung girl lifeguard said I had to drag my yak to the other side of the wharf to launch.  The next time, I launched, and the lifeguard, a different young girl, said when I come back in, stay to the north by the cliffs.  No problem I told her, and had no incident later that day when I came in.  Just depends on the person, and their mood that day I guess.

finally got the scoop.  The regs are a bit cloudy but essentially the state park lifeguards rule the water from the surf  to 1000 feet.  They give up the water in cities that have their own like Santa Cruz.  They can use the broad term 'safe' to allow what they want.  So if you are being safe, the lifeguards can let you launch or fish close to shore.  If they feel you are not safe, then they can push you back to 1000 feet. 

If they want a blanket ban, they are supposed to post the info where the public can see it.

I couldnt find the fine, but it can be issued on behalf of the lifeguards by any law enforcement that has a boat.

Clear as mud? 

Thanks for the info.  I will continue to ignore any rangers throwing a fit and let the dust settle where it may.

Been reading this board for awhile now, about time I add something to it.

I bought my first yak about a month ago and decided for it's maiden voyage I'd launch around Seacliff beach, since it's close to home. I've been in the water for years, but don't have much boat experience. As I was watching the waves, tyring to get a feel for the sets, I had a LG come running up on me and he tells me that, as e2g said, it's illegal for me to launch at a state beach. He then tells me that it's really up to the LG on duty and that as long as I stay 100' away from other people and 1000' off the shoreline he'd let me out. He also wanted to make sure I'd launched in surf before, I hadn't in a kayak, so I BSed him and launched. I gotta admitt it was nerve racking knowing I was being watched surf launching a kayak for the first time, I have done it enough on a surfboard though so I pulled it. The LG was pretty cool and was just making sure everyone was safe.

Cheers!

Hi T O Double D and welcome to the madness.

It's nice to know that not everybody with a shred of power over you and I choose to flaunt it. Nice to see them just doing their job and making sure everybody on the beach and in the water are safe.

I got harassed in front of Twin Lakes by a LG just recently for being inside the buoy line. They asked me to paddle out farther but I was almost back to the harbor so I just pretended like I couldn't hear them.

-FF

It's the height of summer. All the city & state guards have their orders.
Twin lakes beach is notorious for the control thing. This weekend it was a "black dot" day both days. The "black dot" means no hard craft on the beach or in the swimming area. So no fiberglass boards, skimboards, or plastic kayaks. I asked the 18yr old guard on duty about it & he said at their discretion they do allow surfboards to paddle out along the edge of the rock to access the little break there, if there isn't much beach traffic. Mostly I saw him stop skimboarders. Later I heard him talking to a couple of short boarders and say "No hard craft launching, but I'm off shift in 30 minutes, so if you wait you can go out in a half hour". He was very open & friendly about it.