UPDATE: Fishermen's Survey RESULTS

F

Flutterby

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
RO Number
14378
Messages
9,320
I received this via email from the Coastside Fishing Club. Read what they have to say; take the survey; and support their efforts on behalf of northern California fishing!

"Yesterday we had a 10 hour meeting with the coalition of organizations we formed to protect our recreational fishing access during the current MLPA process (the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act that mandates a network of marine protected areas off our coast). Included were our PR firm, our lobbyist in Sacramento, ASA (American Sportfishing Assn.) came in from Washington DC, SAC (Sportfishing Association of California) came in from Southern California, UASC (United Anglers of Southern California), and SCMA. (Southern California Marine Association).

We will be submitting a proposal for our region on Thursday to the process, one of many preliminary proposals being floated by various interest groups.

What I'm about to tell you is fact, not fiction, and I ask you to remember a few things.

1. No matter what your personal views are, it is here, it is law, and we must be part of it. To stay out of it is not in our best interest. This is going to happen, and some of our coast is going to see a reserve (no-fishing area).

2. We must show the state that recreational fisherman will not take a back seat in regards to protecting this fishery. We are the original conservationists.

3. The goal is to come up with an option that provides the conservation dictated by law, and still have a good recreational fishery for all of our targeted species including salmon, crab, rockfish abalone, etc. There will inevitably be pain involved for all user groups. In the end, if we are successful, no one in the process will have gotten everything they wanted, nor will they have lost everything they had. There must be reasonable access to all recreational fisherman, but we must also accept that there must be some closures.

4. There will be closures throughout the region, but we must keep our eye on the ball. We must not let any particular region be denied reasonable access. Our position is that if there is a reserve we must make sure that there still remains plenty of opportunity. This means you might lose a favorite rock, but a rock just as good should be available to you within safe distance from your harbor.

5. If we are successful our region will not suffer the same fate as our brothers to the south where most of the prime fishing areas were closed. A recreational community coming to the middle is unique and not a bad thing. We are supporting sensible closures and working to insure that the spirit of conservation contained within the law actually will help protect the ocean's resources while still allowing us to fish.

I must warn you that if the extreme environmental organizations get their way it will be devastating. Our lives would change. All prime fishing waters would be closed. These organizations don't care about basing the protections on science. They have now moved onto their own concept of "uniqueness". If it is unique in their eyes then they want to shut it down. They are even talking about "unique" parts of the water column! If their reinterpretation of the law gets traction we are in trouble.

Our proposal is not extreme. It is an honest attempt to meet to spirit and letter of the law and to create a series of MPA's that we can live with, that provide a truly useful set of protections for the resource. It is only by joining the process that we have any chance for moderating these extreme views. Make no mistake, this proposal hurts, it closes areas we all want and wish we could fish in, but to walk away from this process, or to insist on no closures at all, will be to give the ground to the extremists.

I worry that your team will get some spears and bad comments from the usual "we gotta' fight 'em and never give an inch, at any cost" crowd in our community. This cannot be helped. We are in tough times, and some tough decisions are being made, and that means that they won't all be popular decisions, but rest assured that the team that is in the trenches is fighting every minute for what is right, and to protect this sport we all love.

In conclusion those that are in this battle all have better things to do, but we can't walk away from this. So I ask you to help when asked, and maybe wish us a little luck. The long tough road is now upon us.

My first request of you is to take this survey to help our PR firm.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=3dvtFspuCc58oQacuLiCRw_3d_3d
"
 
I took the survey. I agree.

I can tell you my older brother is a Ernest Hemingway type character, he lived in Europe for about 15 years...married a European girl, but now lives in the USA.

One of his good friends in Italy was a top leader in their Communist party. Contrary to our media, he told me the communist party did some good things in Italy. Regardless, this communist told my brother the communist cause was failing, so they were moving into the environmental movement. Look at the environmental movement and look at socialism.
Very similar.

I was an early member of the Sierra Club. Where I grew up in Tulsa, OK we had a chemical plant south of the Arkansas River. Their emissions would eat the metal screens off you windows and your screen doors. Ozark Mahoning was their name. My mom was one of the first environmentalist's in America during the late 50s and early 60s they brought about change.

In case you youngsters have forgot, we sent representatives to the Global Cooling conferences in the 70s. Whose agenda is this?
 
quote:
Originally posted by DLL

In case you youngsters have forgot, we sent representatives to the Global Cooling conferences in the 70s.
Click to expand...


And now we send them to Global Warming Conferences.......I guess they were successful in turning Global Cooling around! LOL
 
Global cooling...wasn't that what they thought would happen from all the pollution in the atmosphere?

And now they're claiming that the same thing is causing global warming. That's why it's a mistake to believe, unconditionally, the scientific community that's being backed by a particular party or movement.

Govt has been using 'scientific data' pertaining to our fisheries and using it to regulate or actually, in the past, NOT regulate our fisheries...and guess what, They've pretty much gotten it wrong close to 100% of the time.

What they're trying to do by establishing Marine Sanctuaries is nothing more than a feel good attempt to try and give the impression that they are trying to accomplish something good. Look at all the marine sanctuaries around the world. They would all fit within New Hampshire. I bet if you asked Yves Cousteau, he'd have admit the sanctuaries don't amount to anything...it's what they hope to accomplish. Yeah right.

Sorry for rambling...the electricity went out with the first rains of the season and I ain't got nuttin' else to do.:)[:P]:(
 
Your ramblings are quite interesting. I get so tired of the manipulation of public opinion and so upset that so many people allow themselves to fall for all the cr$p! Guess I'll go over to NBR to let off steam.
 
"Coastsiders

The following press release was released by KPA STRATEGIES. This is a top of the line PR Firm that was hired by Coastside and the other members of our recreational angling coalition.

This information went out to all the media outlets in this state along with the decision makers for the MLPA as of 6:15 this am. We feel this information will put to rest the misinformation that some have perpetrated in regards to how the public feels about recreational fisherman in relationship to the MLPA process.

The survey was done by the prestigious Fields Research. This is one of the top survey companies in the country and their findings can’t be questioned.

Our lobbying firm as we speak is hand delivering the survey and explaining it to those that must see this information.

Look now for press releases to come more frequently as we move through the process.

Californian's Agree - Protecting our Oceans is Possible Without Unnecessary Closures to Recreational Fishing

Field Research Survey Explores the California Public's and Recreational Fishermen's Attitudes Toward the Threats Facing the Ocean and Implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)

Sacramento, CA (10/10/07) – Recreational fishermen want to protect the health of the ocean while preventing unnecessary closures to fishing along the California coastline. A coalition of recreational fishermen’s organizations has united to ensure that people who fish and boat have a voice in the implementation and outcome of the MLPA Initiative process.

“The interests of the general public and recreational fishermen are aligned in this process. Both support scientifically-based management to protect California’s ocean resources based on fact, not emotion,” said Gordon Robertson, Vice President of the American Sportfishing Association.

Because of concerns about unnecessary closures of California’s coastal fishing areas, California’s recreational fishing community decided to examine public attitudes toward the MLPA Initiative implementation process. As part of that process, a state-wide survey sponsored by the American Sportfishing Association was conducted by California-based Field Research Corporation.

The survey results are posted at www.keepamericafishing.org/fieldsurvey.asp for public review. The results of this public opinion research suggest that the public and angler communities are aligned in their belief that the health of California’s ocean environment can and should be protected without unnecessary closures of California coastal waters to recreational fishing.

Survey Findings in Brief

• Californians express high levels of concern about possible environmental threats to the world’s oceans The public’s top concern relates to the pollution of the oceans, about which 59% report a great deal of concern. About half of the public also has a great deal of concern about two other threats – the conservation of ocean marine life and fish populations (51%) and the effect of climate change on ocean habitat and marine life (50%). California anglers express higher levels of concern about the pollution of the oceans and conservation of ocean marine life and fish populations than the general public.

• Sewage dumped into ocean waters and land-based pollutants that drain into ocean waters are seen as being the most serious potential threats to the ocean and marine life along the California coast, with greater than seven in ten considering them very serious. By contrast, only 9% of Californians feel recreational fishermen pose a very serious threat to ocean and marine life along California’s coast.

• When asked directly, nearly all adults (86%) and anglers (93%) believe pollution poses a greater threat to marine life and fish populations than local recreational fishermen.

• When asked whether they believed recreational fishermen are good stewards of the environment and follow practices to help preserve marine life and fish populations, a similar 58% majority of adults answer yes.

• A majority of Californians rate current fishing management practices as being successful in conserving marine life and fish populations along the California coast, Statewide, 12% say they are very successful and 50% feel they are somewhat successful. Just 20% who feel they are not too or not at all successful.

• Very large majorities of both adults (83%) and anglers (74%) support the idea of establishing park areas in designated areas along the California coast, similar to national parks on land, where the ocean environment would be subject to greater protections, but where recreational fishing would be regulated but allowed.

• When Californians are asked whether a number of ocean activities should be banned, limited or not restricted at all if fish populations and marine habitat along the coast are in danger, residents tend to prefer imposing limits on these activities rather than a total ban.

Only about one in three residents (32%) report having heard about the Marine Life Protection Act, and of those aware, most initially think it is a good thing. Public support for the MLPA’s ban on recreational fishing in designated areas along the coast declines significantly if alternative fishing conservation measures are available, such as limiting the months of fishing or the number of fish caught. Just 37% of the adult public favors banning recreational fishing in these areas, while 54% are opposed in this context. Registered voters are somewhat more opposed than the general public, opposing the ban by a 58% to 33% margin.

When general statements about the MLPA, fishing restrictions and the threats facing fish populations are posed to Californians, the results show a public strongly concerned about the threats facing the state’s coastal fish population, but holding mixed views about the MLPA.

§ There is widespread agreement (79%) that “California’s coastal fish populations are in danger and this law is an effective way to try to do something about the problem.”

§ Yet, 61% also concur with a concern of many in the angler community that “under this law, local recreational fishermen could be prohibited from fishing in areas where there is no present threat to fish populations.”

§ About three in four (74%) also agree that “when deciding which areas off the California coast should be off-limits to fishing, the conservation benefits to fish populations and marine habitat should be balanced against its economic and social costs.”

§ Yet, 60% of adults also agree that the law is fair and balances the interests of all the various stakeholders involved in the issue.

There is a clear public consensus (90% agreement) that “any ban that is placed on recreational fishing in California’s coastal waters should include a provision which requires that bans be reassessed at some point in the future.” Large majorities also concur with a number of other statements relating to bans on recreational fishing. These include:

Any ban that is placed on recreational fishing in California’s coastal waters should only be imposed as a last resort where marine life and fish populations are clearly in danger.” (73% agreement)

• Recreational fishing is one of the state’s most popular individual and family activities and banning it in some of the state’s best coastal fishing areas will undermine its popularity.” (66% agreement)

• Banning or severely restricting recreational fishing from some of the state’s best coastal fishing areas will damage the economies of communities along the California coast.” (65% agreement)

• Recreational fishing has little impact on coastal fish populations, so banning it is not an effective way to protect the marine life and fish populations.” (61% agreement)

For complete survey results go to www.keepamericafishing.org/fieldsurvey.asp.

Why Recreational Fishermen Are Concerned

California’s recreational fishing community has expressed concern that while the MLPA initiative process may have laudable objectives, precedent suggests that for practical purposes, closures are permanent with few if any opportunities to re-open debate and that closure does not necessarily equal protection. The public and recreational fishermen are skeptical that a recreational fishing ban will be an effective tool in protecting California’s ocean health.

“Recreational fishermen are interested in the recreational aspects of fishing – and generally have a minimal environmental footprint. We do not use or support equipment or destructive fishing practices that damage the environment such as bottom trawls, gill nets and long lines. It is in our own self interest to protect fish and sensitive habitat for our children and grandchildren. It’s clear from the Field Survey that the average recreational fisherman is as concerned, or more so, than even members of the general public,” said Bob Franko, Chairman of the Coastside Fishing Club.

What Does the Recreational Fishing Community Want?

Coalition members agree: a plan that errs on the side of conservation that includes:
healthy, abundant, sustainable fish populations; habitat conservation, transparency and due process in public proceedings, and the principles of sound science are the most important elements of a workable conservation plan.

In addition, recognition should be given to the long-standing policy of the Federal government to allow public access to public lands and waters for recreational purposes consistent with sound conservation measures in addition to California’s constitutional right to fish. (CA Constitution Article 1, Section 25). The California Ocean Protection Act clearly defines a recreational preference within marine protected areas in state law.

In fact, deliberation and consensus are the keys to ensuring that these ocean resources are not locked up forever. We just have one chance to get it right. A decision by the California Fish and Game Commission to implement Marine Protected Areas – especially no-take areas – without careful consideration could have disastrous consequences for regional economies, recreational fishermen, and potentially the environment.

Recreational fishermen are stewards of the environment and advocates for sustainable fishing and conservation and are often on the front line of ocean protection as first responders -- serving as an early warning system to alert environmental protection agencies about potential environmental damage.

History of the MLPA

The 1999 Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) mandated that the state of California design and manage an improved network of marine protected areas to, among other things; protect marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage. Marine protected areas include marine reserves, marine parks and marine conservation areas.

To implement the original legislation the state created the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, with its Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), Scientific Advisory Team (SAT), and Regional Stakeholder Groups (RSG) to make recommendations to the California Fish and Game Commission who will decide which coastal areas are placed off limits to fishermen and the general public.

Currently, the BRTF is considering Phase Two proposals submitted by interested parties within the MLPA North Central Coast Study Region (Alder Creek/Point Arena in Mendocino County to Pigeon Point in San Mateo County). Phase One covered Pigeon Point to Point Conception.

California’s recreational fishermen support the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s mandate under the state's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative to examine the broad range of potential impacts – not just those from recreational fishing -- on California’s coastal and ocean environment before Task Force members make a final recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission.

About the Survey

A statewide survey of California adults and anglers was conducted on behalf of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) by Field Research Corporation (Field). The overall objective of the survey was to examine public opinion about threats to ocean marine life and fish populations along the California coast, and the implementation of the state’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).

Field Research Corporation, based in San Francisco, is one of the oldest and most respected public opinion research organizations in the Western United States. The company regularly conducts surveys both in California and nationwide for a wide variety of clients in the public and private sectors. Its non-partisan, media-sponsored public opinion news service, The Field Poll, which has operated continuously since 1947, is considered one of the nation’s pre-eminent state polls.

The American Sportfishing Association, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is a national trade association working to ensure fisheries resources and to promote recreational and sportfishing to the American public. Contact: Gordon Robertson at (703-519-9691).

Contacts

Mr. Mark DiCamillo, Senior Vice President, Field Research Corporation can be reached via phone (415-392-5763), fax (415-434-2541) and email markdrb2rb2@gr5tgr5tfield.com.

Daniel Kramer or Susan Bitar, coalition spokespersons, can be reached via phone (916-932-7370), fax (916-932-7371) and email danrb2rb2@gr5tgr5tkpastrategies.com and susanrb2rb2@gr5tgr5tkpastrategies.com.

To download a copy of the Survey results, and to sign up for information updates regarding the ongoing California MLPA visit: www.keepamericafishing.org/fieldsurvey.asp.

For more information about California’s Marine Life Protection Act visit: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/.

Recreational Fishing Coalition Members: Coastside Fishing Club, Sportfishing Association of California, American Sportfishing Association, Southern California Marine Association and United Anglers of Southern California."
 
Yeah I got that too. What is the saying...'Preaching to the Choir'. Trouble is, it's going out to members, not the public. Lets see if they get it out there where it will do some good.
 
It went out to the public yesterday as well. Personally, I don't think it is very well presented and newspapers will be reluctant to print it as is and won't spend the manpower to get the story right. JMHO.
 
Yeah! I haven't heard anything about it other than from Coastside.
 
I received an email from the PR firm, asking if I would be willing to contact "Letters to the Editor" of local newspapers. I said yes and provided the requested info: residence city and phone number. I doubt that the Amador County's Ledger-Dispatch is one of their target publications though!
 
Just a note on global warming. I've no particular ax to grind about this, but my own personal inquiry has led me to believe that it's not only real, but an escalating problem that will become increasingly spectacular in the consequences. In reality it would take fairly narrow thinking to assume that all of our human activities on this planet would not result in some sort of significant environmental change. Ecology is not politics, it's a study of systems -- like your boat. One blown fuse can turn a $300,000 go machine into a floating home, and the earth is far more complex.

Robert
 
Ahhhh, but I have faith in Mother Nature who works tirelessly to keep things in balance. She gives us way too much rain one year and then backs off the next year's rainfall, etc.

And I don't trust politicians----especially Al Gore! I'll put my money on Mother Nature, thank you.

Robert----I like your new Avatar! She's a beauty.
 
Politicians...I don't trust scientists. Remember what they claimed would happen from all the oil well fires in Iraq. Then there was the 'nuclear winter' syndrome from all the smog and other polutants(incidentally, that's what they claimed the oil fires would touch off) Then, somehow the nuclear winter turned into global warming. What a joke! And of course, the politicians will take advantage of whatever point of view that's to their advantage.
 
I think the politicians influence the scientists with $$$$ and such to get the results which they want. It's the chicken and egg thing all over again.
 
Just a minor correction jtybt15: The nuclear winter was the theoretical outcome following a full scale nuclear war with the then Soviet Union. The idea was that so much particulate matter would be driven into the atmosphere that the entire planet would be under a cloud of stuff -- thereby creating a world-wide winter of unknown duration. If things continue to worsen between Russia and the US we just might get a chance to test the theory. They still have a huge nuclear capacity, as do we. Also, the Iraqi oil well fires were an issue in the first Gulf war, not the current one. Ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? Yet another story of how we send our kids off to war and then take lousy care of them once they come back. And Flutterby, thanks for the compliment -- I told her (the boat) and she's blushing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top