The REAL reason for proposed Monterey area reserves revealed

The Coalition for Organizations for Ocean Life aka COOL, a group that favors widespread fishing closures, recently revealed their true motivations.

They want the ocean to be their own private SCUBA aquarium. In their own words:


I also support establishing marine reserves off of Cannery Row in Monterey and at the Cypress Pinnacles in Carmel Bay to restore these depleted areas and improve recreational opportunities for the many thousands of SCUBA divers that use these areas each year.


Read it yourself on the COOL website: http://www.californiamarinereserves.org/MLPAemail2.html

For more on the water COOL wants to close in the Monterey / Carmel area, including Stillwater Cove and the ocean west of Lover's Point, read their most recent newsletter on the Coastside Fishing Club message board: http://www.coastsidefishingclub.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/269392/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD

If this doesn't outrage Central and Northern California kayak anglers enough to get you to submit public comment on the Marine Protected Area networks proposed for Pigeon Point to Pt Conception, I don't know what will. Remember to be dispassionate and reasonable in your tone. I suggest you write that of the current proposals in front of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, only Package 1 - the Angler's Proposal - will provide reasonable kayak fishing opportunities in the only calm water ocean launches in Monterey County. 

You can even use the handy electronic form COOL provides at that link above.

Thanks, Paul.

Thank you for your attention to the impacts on our area.

The proposed closures outlined in all the packages, except package 1, essentially eliminate accessible/quality kayak fishing in Monterey County.

Unfortunately, even package 1 cuts out the Pinnacles, the richest RCG Complex grounds winthin the 120 foot limit and readily accessible to kayakers.  I hope to speak with the package 1 designers regarding this and see if there is some room for modification.  If there is not, at least package one gives us the entire stretch to Cypress Point.

I know that most of you fish north of the areas being closed.  May I suggest that unless the groundwork is set for defending the accessible launches for kayakers near the most popular fishing grounds, which in Monterey County would be Carmel Bay, that it will be harder for you to keep your areas in the north.

To those who would argue against all closures, especially those in Big Sur, may I ask you to consider for a moment that we can fish 2-3 times each week in Carmel Bay but each trip to Big Sur takes more than a day.  Carmel Bay offers not only quality but easy accessiblility for those of us who live down here.  Every weekend that is remotely fishable sees a half dozen or more kayak anglers at the pinnacles.

There may be other areas of concern in Santa Cruz or SLO counties, but my familiarity is with the areas of Monterey County.

Thank you for any help you can extend.

Pat

Notice that when they want to close fishing so they can improve SCUBA habitat they don't suggest letting us fish in deeper water that they can't dive in.

In general I believe restrictions on kayak fishing should be minimal to none...ideally. Same way it is for bow hunters, etc.

Only restrictions should be on large scale/commercial fishing if at all.

Kayak fisherman and individual fisherman aren't what's depleting ocean of fish...it's large scale netting, global warming, pollution, etc.

These special interest groups need to be shut down.  Self serving PoliOrg's like Pool and Ceta pump the right pockets full of money,
get their proposals stashed into bills to feed orphans, than it passes into law.  Fish & Game Needs to be fully funded by sports
llicense holders and have full charge of the state fish and game,  and that no politician or political body can bypass their authority. 
Fish & Game should control any studies and administer "temporary closures" or adjust" take parameters" in the interest of reasonable
preservation and in the interest of license holders.  The definition of a "temporary closure" needs to include a plan to reinstate
previous use parameters and a time line schedule to do so.  The definition of "sports license funded" needs to state that fish and game
revenues will not be mixed into state coffers and redistributed. This will keep funding issues from being held overhead for special interest leverage.  Now, what you'd have is an organization that works for us.  This state has already trashed deer hunting thru closures,
special draws, and buck only hunting to the point that alot of us don't even bother.       

Just my 2

Ron

P.S. I'm gonna refer to our adversaries as pool and ceta as their agenda
as well as the letters in there moniker's are interchangeable...   

 

I appreicate your sentiments. Unfortunately the MLPA Initiative process falls outside of normal DFG management purview.

It's state law - it mandates a netowrk of Marine Protected Areas based on Reserves (total fishing closures) - it's going to happen. Leaving all the water open and lowering limits is not an available option.

Since that is the case, only public testimony that stays on topic is effective. Comment on how the proposed closures will disproportionately impact kayak anglers, suggest dropping the Pinnacles Reserve from Package 1, or voice support for the Angler's Package. Please save the criticism of the process as a whole for the California Fish and Game Commission - which plan to adopt is up to them at a later date. 

As of now, the DFG doesn't distinguish kayak anglers from boat anglers; just recreational from commercial, and boat recreationals from shore casters. We'll need a lot of clout, numbers, and commited long-term organization if we ever want to attain independent status.

Hey, there are non-motorized lakes, so why not non-motorized fishing regions in the salt.  I agreet that it will take a lot of clout and organization.  We'd need some solid statistics too.  Hmm, I wonder if we should gather catch stats this year for us?

-Allen

What a thought.  Carmel Bay as an open, non-motorized fishery............the concept makes a person dizzy with the thought........

there are non-motorized lakes, so why not non-motorized fishing regions in the salt

I've also thought about that but I wonder how the coastside lobby would feel about it.
They have a lot more weight than we have.
I also wonder after reading the COOL website what would happen if Zero Impact zones were supported no fishing no diving.
Would they still support the closures ?
I know that sounds extreme and I'm not supporting it but does a Zodiac full of divers have less impact than a kayak-er taking a few fish?

Good points Mickfish.

So called "non-consumptive" divers (looky-loos) DO have an impact when they interact with the marine environment. Brushing along the bottom, stirring up silt and sediment, picking up interesting critters - yes I know, seems nit-picky, but anglers (even recreationals) are often dinged for bottom distrubance too. Anyhow, the little stuff from each diver adds up to a measurable impact if you can believe the studies.  Forgive me for not citing the specific one - its somewhere in the reams of MLPA materials.

I'm often asked to push for no-motor zones. I usually reply that we are a small user group that needs the support of the "big boys" in the recreational fishing community. We need them to look out for our interests. I sincerely believe Coastside, RFA, and UASC mean to do well by us, so I'd be loath to do anything to alienate them.

But what about the no-motor zones in Texas and Florida? That's different. Those are in sea grass environments prone to prop-scarring. Nothing like that here in our big salty.

On the other hand, I don't see why we shouldn't advocate marine parklands. These are recreational only fishing areas.   

I believe that our alliance with Coastside is good as well.  Package #1 makes a lot of good sense to me for what it sets up in Monterey County.  We just have a small need that they couldn't have anticipated.  Not being as politically savy as the other groups, we are coming a bit late to the party.  It is great that Howard Egan has supported our additional efforts.

I'm also glad to hear that the looky loo diver impacts are discussed.  I cringe each time one of these big tourist dive boats pulls up next to me (at which point I go fish somewhere else) and slams their anchor down.  I am assuming that in the no take zones they will be required to install moorings for future use to stop the anchor damage that has to be occuring?

Pat

I am assuming that in the no take zones they will be required to install moorings for future use to stop the anchor damage that has to be occuring?

I believe the Gull Island MLPA at Santa Cruz Island has a mooring or moorings - not there previously.
My vote is for package 1. I may make some enemies with this, but when I used to paddle out to the Pinnacles to tank dive, it never seemed right to hunt there. I waited to get back closer to shore to hunt. It is a pristine beautiful area to dive including great visibility; I think that is why the "lookys" want to protect it. I am for leaving the closer-in areas open for fishing; there has to be accesiible fishing for non-motorized craft. Just my 2 cents.

Just sent my letter to Chairman Isenberg. A copy goes to COOL too. That should make them happy...

That's interesting that you choose to not spear at the Pinnacles, Rich.  Before I began fishing from my kayak I learned of the pinnacles location because when I was out just paddling I would run into a diving friend who would go out for his weekly ling at the pinnacles.  Despite regular recreational fishing, the pinnacles is a thriving recreational fishery.........an example of successful management.  Something to be celebrated.

If the rest of the bay were open to fishing, I would agree to closing this part, Rich.  But the entire other half of the bay is a reserve....shall we mention that it is a reserve  open to divers?  The Pt Lobos reserve is closed to kayak anglers (and all other hunters and fishermen).  The Pt Lobos reserve will be expanded under Package 1.  I agree that it is a good thing.  It is a good sized run of good quality coastline.

So, in this setting, closing off a prime kayak fishing site within a mere 2 miles of a prime kayak launch site seems profoundly excessive to me.  Squeezing the recreational anglers, there are LOTS more fishermen in this area than just kayakers, into an area half or less than what we have now would, I fear, decimate the area.........and there seems no reason to do this.

The recreational fishery in northern carmel bay is a terrific example of managed success and one to be championed.......at least that is my feeling......

Pat

Squeezing the recreational anglers, there are LOTS more fishermen in this area than just kayakers, into an area half or less than what we have now would, I fear, decimate the area.........and there seems no reason to do this.

Pat

Again that's the part of all this that doesn't make much sense, fencing the fishing in to small areas. It seems like it would make more sense to drop the limits and spread out the damage.

I stopped trying to make sense out of politics a long time ago. This is not about what makes the most sense, it is about what a small vocal and wealthy group wants for there own selfish desires. Sense was never part of the equation unfortunatly.