kayakfishermen are "tiny" wuss! Or so they say.

[zenspearo]

And the preservationist-enviro want the BRTF to shrug you off. Because you don't matter.

http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=95007

Here's is what you can do. Join your fellow kayakfishermen and send those emails.

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/s...ead.php?t=6213

Don't only send them by yourself. Have your wife send them. Have your kids send them.

In my house, that's 5 people. And I send them for all 6 regions. That's 30 emails from this house alone!!!!

If you need arguments, here they are.

Overall in support of Group 2:

Provides for almost as much protection as other WGs at 1/2 to 1/4 of the cost to the recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and fishing-dependent communities.
Has broad cross-interest support
Presents a fully-integrated array, which resulted from a year of more of intense negotiations among a wide variety of ocean users.

For San Diego (the area I know):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1. Support Prop 2 for San Diego, where it meets all science guidelines and lessens economic impact. Captures the rare deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar. Other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines because they do not.

2. Argue strenuously against the closure of South La Jolla. If the task force closes south La Jolla, enlarges the existing reserve and grows the SMCA proposed for the pier all the way up to Torrey Pines (BOOKENDS), there will be many negative impacts:

- Closing south la jolla will cause huge compaction in the postage-sized NW of La Jolla. Compaction will cause a huge threat to public safety. We'll have to share a tiny area with sportboats, private boats, commercial boats, free divers and kayakers. People will get hurt, most likely a free diver or kayaker.


- South La Jolla is critically important to local commercial lobster and urchin and to the sportboat landings in Mission Bay. Remember, in years the current runs predominately uphill, south La Jolla grows in importance to us too. Besides, north Pt Loma is more suitable as it offers the most persistent kelp forest in Southern California. When there's no kelp in LJ, its still hanging on at north Pt Loma. The economic and access hits are much lighter.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For Laguna: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!

WG2 shape takes into account ALL the guidelines set forth by the DFG as to size and shape, and as to special areas to avoid as well as to consider. There is NO shape for Laguna that can meet 100% of all habitat requirements. One of the goals of the MLPA master plan guidance was to NOT disenfranchise the consumptive public. While shapes like the alternative shape put forth by the BRTF would not completely stifle boat fishing, it WOULD effectively kill shore based fishing and diving practices. These beaches are some of the traditional dive spots, from before the time of Scuba. People have fished from the shore in Laguna since the town's inception, and as a consumptive user, we lost the opportunity to fish from Aliso Pier with it's destruction by large surf and subsequent removal. The shape brought forth by WG 2 would at the least allow 5 coastal access points out of 26. That is a MINIMAL amount of accessible beach to fish from. The state has deemed public access to be mandatory to beachfront areas, and much of those easements were designed and fought for by shore based fishermen.
Even the Surfrider foundation agreed with the shape and design of WG2's proposal, though they asked for the upper line to be moved to the north.

The alternate shape for Laguna NOT being actively discussed at this moment is the one in which the boundary lines are perpendicular to shore. Starting At Cress St. which has an unmistakable boundary on the beach, along with a clearly visible boiler rock 1/3 mile off shore is THE SIMPLEST shape of all to enforce, and for the public at large to follow. Whether fishing from a boat or kayak, the line of the rock to the outcropping on the beach, coupled with the road above make following the rules for this shape simple. The northern boundary would be at Emerald Cove, from the large boiler at the headland. Yet another unmistakable clear boundary. The shape is larger than WG2, and it does capture more nearshore habitat by design. Also, it will close off some more access points than WG2. But, it would STILL leave us 5 good access points, and would give anglers of all types a bit of safe, dependable access to the shoreline in Laguna, while protecting miles of great habitat.

Proposal 1 and the alternate being considered by the BRTF for their "preferred alternative" would close every easy access point (suitable for seniors and others with some physical limitations) except for 1 from Corona del Mar to Dana Point - - 14 miles of coastline. Proposal 2 leaves open 9 easy access points for spear and surf fishermen in this area.

Central Laguna - the area to be closed - is one of the few areas in the world where "modern" spearfishing began. A number of people, including my dad, began spearfishing in Laguna in the early 1930's. Home made equipment, no wet suits or dry suits, no spearguns, no snorkles. Home made masks and spearpolls with churchhill fins. They started spearfishing here because it is one of the best areas for divers. Exceptionally clear water and safe protected pocket coves. This is a traditional spearfishing area and we should retain some of fishing in the future.

Workgroup 2 does not take away as much access in Laguna Beach as workgroup 3 or 1. Access in Laguna Beach for disabled individuals is limited and workgroup 2 map is the only proposal that leaves some access for these individuals in Laguna Beach. There has also been a last minute alternative shape created for Laguna Beach as well that would also still allow decent access to shore based anglers and consumptive divers. Both workgroup 2 and the alternative shape have very definitive boundaries on both their northern (Abalone Point) and southern ends (Cress street) which would make enforcement for F&G officers more manageable and also allow the public to make a visual designation as to where the boundaries of the closure areas are located.

The revised, perpendicular-from-shore shape, proposed by many RSG members, meets requests from DFG for boundaries, which meet their guidelines for enforceability

Opens 6 of the 26 possible public access points, 25 of which are closed in other proposals