CKF Forums

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 05, 2012, 11:09:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
FYI-The Forum "Views" Counters are Disabled. Several Hundred Anglers Visit The Forums Every Day-Reader  contributions (your posts) have helped guide thousands of kayak anglers along in the sport, for 12 years running (since August `97), and are greatly appreciated!
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CKF Forums
|-+  General Category
| |-+  Malibu/Santa Monica Bay
| | |-+  Hey, Falcon, Vinny, Leo, and all you other bums...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Hey, Falcon, Vinny, Leo, and all you other bums...  (Read 5 times)
Toad Patrol
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


View Profile
« on: September 18, 2009, 11:12:56 AM »

Have you guys fallen off the planet? There's this thing called the Marine Life Protection Act and their gonna run your asses off the water, my friends. Sent a letter or an e-mail to the DFG, been to a meeting, expressed your disgust at the BS their trying to ram down our throats? Maybe you sold your kayaks and took up needlepoint? Show some stones and be at the last Meeting to save Pt.Dume. Long Beach Hilton 701 West Ave. Oct.21. There is an evening public soundoff and I want you to be there. Or else I'll personally revoke your permit to kayakfish in Malibu, you pussies! That goes for the rest of you slimey squid-pizzles! It's now or never.

The Workgroup 2 proposal is the one to support, it leaves open Dume, BKR, enough of Westward to launch and rockfish. Any questions?
-Apparently The Only Pissed Offed Kayakfisherman In Malibu
« Last Edit: September 18, 2009, 11:17:21 AM by Toad Patrol » Logged
Toad Patrol
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2009, 09:39:15 PM »

Wow, I'm the only one to respond to my own post. Sorry, I missed your obituaries in the paper.
Shame, shame, shame.
Logged
Spike
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2009, 10:36:37 PM »

Scotto,
I know Falcon reads and and has sat at many a meeting  Smiley

The passion of your message is being delivered.  While an anomoly that replies are scant or absent, there are hundreds of daily readers.  A big % of those from beyond the local range who will benefit down the road from our experience.
Keep typing.
Logged
Falcon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2009, 02:29:46 PM »

Damn I got called out! I better put Long Beach on the calendar, dont want to get in bad blood with the Malibu locals!
Logged
Spike
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2009, 04:06:37 PM »

Has there been any word from our stakeholder reps?  It's been ominously quiet on this end. 

Is there any chance MLPA implementation could be staves off by lawsuits?  Everything I read in the press at this late stage is about how crooked the process has been, how the minority user is being railroaded and how the science is perfectly flawed and should HURT the fisheries. 

I don't think our reps are permitted to comment on these issues due to the constraints of their position.

As a respected outdoor writer told me "I wouldn't take my kids to Monterey Bay Aquarium". Amen!
Logged
JJ
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM »

There are ways that the MLPA process can be challenged.
Generally speaking, however, I wouldn't count on lawsuits to completely undo this process.
It is extremely costly and not a sure bet...not by a long shot.

The flaws in the process that Spike mentioned are well known.
I'm not too sure if that'll be enough.  The MLPA is law.
As enacted, and subsequently amended, its mandates these closures.
In other words, the MPAs will happen, whether we like it or not.
The question is where and how much.

This is where the stakeholders NEED US!!!!
The upcoming October hearing in Long Beach
is a MUST attend public comment session for us ALL.
No excuses.  If you give a $h!t about Pt. Dume, BKR..etc..,
you must be there to voice your opinion about the 3 proposals.
The Long Beach hearings are not intended for voicing your
dissatisfaction with the process.  That part of this process ended long ago.
There are 3 proposals out of which the final proposal to the DFG will be
drafted.  The comments will be heard by the BRTF.  So, this is a BIGGIE!!!!!
Show up and make specific comments about the three proposals.

The LJ contingent have been very active and vocal about this process
as far as the LJ and Mission Bay closure areas.  Consequently, they have been
very successful in keeping their grounds relatively safe.
The Malibu guys have not been as active as LJ and the results/proposals show it.
Make no mistake about it, Pt. Dume/BKR have a big bullseye on them.
The enviros want this area for mostly political reasons....to make the Malibu snobs happy!!!

I was at the last public comment session at the LAX Sheraton.
The proposals by Workgroup 1 and 3 take both sides of Pt. Dume,
almost to the Paradise Cove parking lot.  The boundaries are not too clear on some maps.
We may have access to a small portion of BKR, but will lose most if not all of it
under the proposals of Workgroup 1 and 3.

The best proposal for Pt. Dume/BKR is that by Workgroup 2.
It proposes closures from west of Pt. Dume up to, but not including,
Zeros/Nicholas Canyon.  This is, obviously, the most popular proposal
with kayak anglers.  In fact, this proposal meets and even exceeds the
SAT Guidelines.  There is ample deep canyon, as well as shallow and deep
reef structure.  There is also extensive sustained kelp.  There is no
justification for placing an MPA on both sides of Dume.  Any
closure proposed for east of Dume is purely for political reasons.

If you haven’t been involved at all, please do not miss the October
public comment session in Long Beach.  If you don’t want to speak,
then sign up and then cede your time to another.
As it is, individual comment sessions are no longer than
30 seconds to a minute.  If you cede your time, someone else
may have a chance to speak longer and make your point for you.
We must show the BRTF that we support our stakeholders...PAL and MJ.
I have been to 6 MLPA meetings/events by now and can’t imagine
how these guys have sacrificed so much of their time and life for us.
The least we can do is to show up and fight to save our playground.
Believe me, the lack of support/interest in saving Pt. Dume and BKR
is being noticed by many.

I’m sorry to ramble on.  But, this means a lot to me and many others, like Scott.
And I’m sure it means a lot to everyone here.  But, if we don’t voice our concern
at the other proposals, and if we don’t show our support for Proposal 2,
we WILL lose BKR/Pt. Dume...etc.

Thank you for reading.  I hope everyone will be at the October MLPA public comment
session in Long Beach.

Cheers and TL. -JJ-
Logged
Toad Patrol
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2009, 12:18:43 AM »

JJ, by the way, Workgroup 2's proposal draws the line at the eastward restroom at Westward west to Lechuza, given us ample parking and launch and sizeable deep canyon fishing area there. There is still sizeable fishing area down from Leo.
 It is the only proposal that keeps me from being a poacher there.
With the 7' deep beach erosion drop at the trancas access that makes Trancas impossible to launch so there isn't any beach kayak launching in that MPA if you wanted to. I don't think the BRTF is even aware of that.
Workgroup2's plan is the only safe MPA for us, the surf fishermen and the divers.
It exceeds the scientific guidlines for all .All importabt points to express.
And it would really piss off all the the pro MLPA enviro's, (you know who you are) to lose Dume.
I like that part best.
-TL,
Scott
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!