California is Shutting Down Some Fishing Grounds

[psterling76]

It appears that it has finally happened. This has been in the works for a while. I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this. State Creates Marine Havens - Los Angeles Times

I think it will help the fishery, but we need to do more to restrict commercial boats. If that means you pay $15/# @ the store, so be it. This is not a farm and the resources when gone will not be easily replenished.

[aftahour]

Whatever it takes to protect the wildlife and the sport/.

[Beresford13861]

protecting life, more so wildlife, is very important thing, and has to be done.
but id have to agree with stricter regulations for commercial boating.

[YakityYak]

Yeah, I read the story. It's enivitable. Sure we miss out on some fishing, but it means our kids and thier kids don't.

[umoa]

i think its not cool that commercial fishermen take so much more, yet in the end, rec anglers also get messed.

so a big *flip* to commercial anglers and poachers!

it'd be cool to have a smile that shows the bird.

[BeachBear]

It was needed. I'd like one day for my kids to catch white sea bass not white trash bags.

[heino]

Im glad we are all in agreement!

"Nature can provide for mans need but not his greeds"
Cheif Seattle

[cashe]

Originally Posted by heino

Im glad we are all in agreement!

"Nature can provide for mans need but not his greeds"
Cheif Seattle

I'm not in agreement....Theirs more to it than just closing down some areas by the state,the Federal govorment is closing a big chunk too. wise up, there not taking away your fishing rights to this area for the next generation or two, there taking it away for good.To appease some environmental groups,if they just wanted to save some fish, all they need to do is stop commercial fishing in these areas,and maybe put some limits on the size and numbers of fish you can take. If they cared you would see more F&G wardens to catch the poachers,and people who catch undersize fish,and over limits....Nature can provide for mans needs but not his greed, proves my point.You don't need to close off parts of the ocean,just stop the greedy.Can you quess who they are????. I might be wrong but you sound like one of those environmentalist,not a naturalist.

[klymons]

Originally Posted by psterling76

It appears that it has finally happened. This has been in the works for a while. I just wanted to see what everyone thought about this. State Creates Marine Havens - Los Angeles Times

I think it will help the fishery, but we need to do more to restrict commercial boats. If that means you pay $15/# @ the store, so be it. This is not a farm and the resources when gone will not be easily replenished.

This whole closure thing is a bad joke without a punch line! I've been following the story in WON from the beginning. The powers behind the closures are radical environmentalists--and, yes, those punk *** PETA terrorists who have been arrested several times for attacking fishermen. They want to stop fishing altogether. The only reason that Governor Terminator has backed these closures--he could care less about fishing one way or another--is that his wife, Maria Shriver, told him that this would be a good way to pull in votes from Democrats who are sympathetic to the environmentalists, especially "the limousine liberals." These are people who own property in Malibu and don't like their view ruined by the unsightly sportfishing boats. Some other "dirty little secrets" about the closures. The reasons for the closures were based on sketchy anecdotal observations, old data, and a fisheries scientist--Dr. Milton Love--who used to write for WON--who made several dives in a one-man submarine and declared that the areas he visited should have been full of rockfish, but now it was like a desert. His reports were later refuted by independent reports that stated that the areas he visited had never held a large population of rockfish! Also, the DFG had a few meetings where fisherman were invited to give their input, but many in attendance said they felt that the "fix" was already in, and their views meant nothing. The closure cabal have targeted recreational fisherman from the beginning, but seemed to gloss over the impact of commercial fishermen. For years they have been slaughtering fish with impunity, literally scraping the bottom of the ocean and destroying rockfish habitat. For years they have been long-lining and gill-netting with disastrous results. But thanks to a vocal--and well-paid army of lobbyists--they keep on raping the fisheries while politicians--of both parties--continue to line their pockets. In other words, this is not a Republican vs. Democrat flame war. Both parties share guilt equally--and us--the recreational fishermen who practice catch & release, obey bag limits, and do our best to practice conservation--are forced to suffer for the sins of the greedy *** commercials. I know almost everybody on these boards does catch and release and obeys the limit regulations. This description also applies to the majority of recreational fishermen. We are not the problem, and closures will have absolutely no impact on the commercial guys. They will be free to waste tons of "bycatch" while we lose thousands of square miles to closures as the PETA juggernaut breaks into thunderous applause!

[klymons]

Originally Posted by umoa

i think its not cool that commercial fishermen take so much more, yet in the end, rec anglers also get ####ed.

so a big *flip* to commercial anglers and poachers!

it'd be cool to have a smile that shows the bird.

You are absolutely right! The commercial guys are supported by armies of lobbyists who are busy supporting their right to rape the oceans by lining the pockets of sketchy politicos from both parties! As for recreational fishermen, we have tried hard to be honest and play by the rules but, but we end up taking the blame for the fisheries collapse! Legitimate sportfishing businesses will end up going belly-up and private boaters will be shut out of fertile fishing areas. Does any of this sound like justice and democracy at its best? At this point, I would normally tell everyone who thinks that all this sucks BigTime, to write to their local state representative, but it's too late--the commercials have pounded us into oblivion(along with their friends the radical environmentalists and the PETA punks), and no matter how much you protest, the fix is in(the politician's pockets have been lined), and we--the recreational fishermen--are forced to to accept the consequences,

[cashe]

Originally Posted by psterling76

It appears that it has finally happened. This has been in the works for a while.

I think it will help the fishery, but we need to do more to restrict commercial boats. If that means you pay $15/# @ the store, so be it. This is not a farm and the resources when gone will not be easily replenished.

Sorry to disagree, but the ocean is a farm.Mother Nature's farm,and you can harvest large quantities,but there are limits,when those limits are reached you must limit or stop harvesting the Oceans resources.By closing down area to a no take fishery,or as politician like to call them perserves, you have only put more pressure on the surrounding areas not cured the problem. We need to work at curing the problems, overfishing,No matter how you look at the problem it always comes back to pollution and overfishing. We are all guilty of polluting,but who is taking 95% or more of the fish???Not You or I, but the commercial fisherman.... If done right, there's plenty of fish to go around for the commercial fisherman and us.

[psterling76]

I knew that this would become a heated topic. I like the heat.

Are these closures a bad thing? Yes, we all will agree on closing fishing grounds, sucks for people who fish and like fishing there.

Are these closure necessary? That is debatable. No one will disagree that commercial fisherman are largely at fault for the so called decline in fish, both size and numbers. They take more fish and have more of an impact on the environment than the local sportfishing/fisheman fleet, but we most all assume responsibilty, I know it sucks. We can not allow the commercial boats to do the damage, and then sweep in to slaughter the lambs. It's not responsible.

Are these closures permanent? That's also debatable. I can tell you that studies are actively held throughout the US every year in reserves and studies are published, my wife and some of her friends have been included in on some surveys. We have also seen Bolsa Chica given back to us recently, this is good news!!!!

It is up to us on how what is done, and having fishing grounds closed to both us and commercial fisherman is a start. Commercial fisherman are just as angry that they have to travel further for the same crop. Mother nature can only "farm" when us, the reaper, allows her to sow.

Hopefully with all our help, commercial fisherman included, we can rebuild what has been destroyed. We are change, by voting and bringing these issues up in forums to educate the masses. I know that sounds corny, but lumber workers must now plant 2 trees for each cut down. Small steps towards one goal makes a big difference.

I am on the side of commercial fishermen??? Absolutely not, but I understand that they have the resources and the income to fix what has been broken for a long time. We must work together with them and the goverment to find a solution. We can not take without putting back. Scripps has an awesome white seabass program, and that could be just a stepping stone (dreaming).

I want to see a land with trees and fish and birds and bison and ...... Don't you????

[PlatinumHooks]

I have mixed feeling about this issue. On one hand I think; more than anything, we need to have a conservationist mentality and go with the flow. On the other hand I think that the government penalizes the wrong venue. It seems our sport suffers due to commercial greed most of the time. I guess you just gotta "ride or die"