DFW releases results of comments received via the Abalone FMP Workshops.

First look over of the captured comments across the spectrums ....................
not bad I so say.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/redabalonefmp/phase1.asp

Thanks for posting that up, I wouldn't have gone looking for it without your post.

I read the whole thing, really interesting, and it shows that at least they were serious about listening.

On the whole a good bunch of ideas.

As the process progresses I for one would appreciate you posting up significant milestones and the direction things are headed,

One comment, while I think more complex regulations might offer the honest/(willing to educate oneself) fisher more opportunity (and be a good idea IMO) I think DFW will want/try to keep it simple.

Thanks Dale you are welcome. As for your comment: "One comment, while I think more complex regulations might offer the honest/(willing to educate oneself) fisher more opportunity (and be a good idea IMO) I think DFW will want/try to keep it simple."

I too wrestle what that contently and consequently. I too want it simple in a compound complex issues always wary of being careful for what you ask for because you just might get it

You have it Dale, as the milestones turns...................... 

Pretty interesting findings

Pretty interesting findings

Of the comments wormguy, if would, or anyone who has read the subject matter, of the comments generated what did you find the most interesting and why ?

Anyone know when we have to send in our abalone report cards?

I found this comment interesting:
"Participants expressed a preference for retaining or increasing fishing opportunity at the expense of ensuring high fishing success."
It is my hope that the majority of folks believe that it is our duty to leave a sustainable quality fishery for our children's children. I'm not trying to jump on a conservationist stump, maybe not the right word as the folks participating in this forum seem to be well aware of the need for conservation and respect for the fishery, but I have taught my children that waste is a bad thing and will always lead to a decrease in the quality of the fishery.
I have personally seen a decrease in the quality of the fishery from Ocean Cove to Pedotti. Especially after the die off. Coves that were once full of large abalone now require a lot bigger effort to fill a limit. I haven't had the same experience in Mendocino. Large, numerous abalone still cover areas that are under pressure daily. This past weekend my buddies and I were in awe of the quality of the fishery in Van Damme State Park that has a diver in the water just about every legal hour of the season.
I support the lower limits and limited time closures of areas where there is science to support. As those areas recover, there should be a conversation started to reopen.
Quality over quantity is my mantra.

Anyone know when we have to send in our abalone report cards?

See right side of page for instructions. And you can do report card return on line as well.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/invertebrate/abalone.asp

I found this comment interesting:
"Participants expressed a preference for retaining or increasing fishing opportunity at the expense of ensuring high fishing success."
It is my hope that the majority of folks believe that it is our duty to leave a sustainable quality fishery for our children's children. I'm not trying to jump on a conservationist stump, maybe not the right word as the folks participating in this forum seem to be well aware of the need for conservation and respect for the fishery, but I have taught my children that waste is a bad thing and will always lead to a decrease in the quality of the fishery.
I have personally seen a decrease in the quality of the fishery from Ocean Cove to Pedotti. Especially after the die off. Coves that were once full of large abalone now require a lot bigger effort to fill a limit. I haven't had the same experience in Mendocino. Large, numerous abalone still cover areas that are under pressure daily. This past weekend my buddies and I were in awe of the quality of the fishery in Van Damme State Park that has a diver in the water just about every legal hour of the season.
I support the lower limits and limited time closures of areas where there is science to support. As those areas recover, there should be a conversation started to reopen.
Quality over quantity is my mantra.

Thanks Andy and I'll have to try that red abalone beer !

What does: "expressed a preference for retaining or increasing fishing opportunity at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" mean to you ? How do you think you get there: retaining or increasing fishing opportunity ?
What do you think "at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" is ?

What does: "expressed a preference for retaining or increasing fishing opportunity at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" mean to you ? How do you think you get there: retaining or increasing fishing opportunity ?
What do you think "at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" is ?

When I read that one, I took that to mean some want to leave areas open to diving = (retain or increase opportunity)   no matter how over fished they get =(at the expense of ensuring high fishing success).

What does: "expressed a preference for retaining or increasing fishing opportunity at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" mean to you ? How do you think you get there: retaining or increasing fishing opportunity ?
What do you think "at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" is ?

When I read that one, I took that to mean some want to leave areas open to diving = (retain or increase opportunity)   no matter how over fished they get =(at the expense of ensuring high fishing success).

Dale: That's how I read it as well, and that is why I disagree.

Go straight to the online report card here to save some time:
https://www.ca.wildlifelicense.com/InternetSales/CustomerSearch/Begin

I like the idea of purchasing cards in increments of the seasonal quota. I can't see DFG pulling through with that one though, no incentive other than being fair to those who can't make a trip more than a couple times a year.

What does: "expressed a preference for retaining or increasing fishing opportunity at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" mean to you ? How do you think you get there: retaining or increasing fishing opportunity ?
What do you think "at the expense of ensuring high fishing success" is ?

When I read that one, I took that to mean some want to leave areas open to diving = (retain or increase opportunity)   no matter how over fished they get =(at the expense of ensuring high fishing success).

Dale: That's how I read it as well, and that is why I disagree.

"and that is why I disagree"
So by disagreeing one means a abalone report card landing site should be closed if over fished ? And if so closed upon being over fished, at what level would this be ?

I like the idea of purchasing cards in increments of the seasonal quota. I can't see DFG pulling through with that one though, no incentive other than being fair to those who can't make a trip more than a couple times a year.

You know GrimKeeper this one brings me to something I heard at two of the FMP workshops I attended that was repeated by commission staff: Be careful of what you ask for because you might just get it !
I do suggest ask yourself is there a danger with this concept? Hint: is there a danger with just having a quota on the number of cards issued period ?