MPA's Are Coming

[Finaddict]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so if it needs to be moved, feel free.

I have been telling everyone the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) were coming. This is yet another attempt to limit our access to the fisheries and resources. If you do not belong to an organization fighting for your access rights, we need your support today.

Please click on the link to see where in your state MPA's have been proposed. I am working on counter measures here in DE.

What is a Marine Protected Area?
Some people interpret marine protected areas to mean areas closed to all human activities. Others interpret them as special areas set aside for recreation and commercial use, much like national parks. In reality, “marine protected area” is a term that encompasses a variety of conservation and management methods in the United States.
The official federal definition of an MPA is: “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” -- Executive Order 13158 (May 2000)
In practice, MPAs are defined areas where natural and/or cultural resources are given greater protection than the surrounding waters. In the U.S., MPAs span a range of habitats including the open ocean, coastal areas, inter-tidal zones, estuaries, and the Great Lakes. They also vary widely in purpose, legal authorities, agencies, management approaches, level of protection, and restrictions on human uses.
The link below outlines all the areas in your state that have been nominated as an MPA. Take the time to read and check out what can happen in your area:http://mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/nomsites_state3_17_09.pdf

[Finaddict]

This is no joke my friends. Look what is happening on the west coast.

http://www.976-tuna.com/e107_files/p...0_scan0009.jpg

[bunkerjoe4]

I thank you for your diligence in putting this up, Finaddict. For now I think we will leave these discussions in the main forum. As laws and legislation arise relating to this issue, we will try to keep those legislative alerts in the "Laws and Legislation" forums.
http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...play.php?f=108

MPAs are commonly accepted on the West Coast and other areas. It would be disastrous to surf fishermen to implement the same types of restrictions here on the East Coast. I think when folks hear the word MPA, the significance escapes them. Once they are in place, they are a way for folks whose interests are other than fishing to control access decisions regarding all fishermen. For that reason alone, I am strongly opposed. There are other means to handle an overfishing issue rather than shutting down a complete area, or restricting fishing so severely that it serves as a defacto shutdown.

There are some politically connected people behind the idea to impose MPAs, folks. These groups are driven to achieve their goals of taking away the rights of fishermen. They are very manipulatiive and much more organized than the splintered fractious fishermens' groups out there. For that reason it is important to align ourselves with other groups when possible and try to put aside the minor differences in opinion. Whether we fish from a boat, the surf, or a beach buggy, we all suffer collectively when one of these groups loses access.

I am asking all who read this to please take a few minutes and go to the link Finaddict has provided here.
http://mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/n...ate3_17_09.pdf


If you have any questions and concerns after reading, or even if you don't agree with the opinions here, I invite you to share your opinions with the community. This is an issue that will not go away, certainly concerns all fishermen, and is worth fighting with all the resources we have. Kudos to Finaddict for bringing it up here.

[Finaddict]

I couldn't agree with you more. Your comments are right on the money. Everyone needs to band together now.

[DarkSkies]

Thank you, FA, I checked it out for NJ. Seems they're all related to wildlife and birds so far, but they could decide to make inner bay areas off limits for fishing to test the waters.

In Cali the closures are on the coast. I know people who live there who say it's not that bad, but they don't live near an actual area and have other coastal places to fish. In NJ, NY, Del, Md, or Va, the outer coastline is smaller, and closing parts of them would put pressure on other areas. Not good.

[bababooey]

Good thread Finaddict. Joe and you are right on target here. The groups that want to make these types of areas permanently closed to fishermen are dangerous. I have mt some of them at cocktail parties, elite snobs who are well organized and with millions to support this stuff. I fish on my boat more than anything else. I know I bb you surf guys all the time, but I have been out there in the suds too. I know what it's like to have people with no manners around you. We do all need work together on this.

[Finaddict]

The Packard Foundation contributed over $123 million over three years to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. And the Packard Foundation has contributed over $18 million to keeping the MLPA process afloat in California.

They are paying for the science that is closing the Calif coast and the state is letting them do it because they say the state doesn't have the money to do the scientific studies.

Fish and Game commissioner Michael Sutton is a corporate officer with the Monterey Bay Aquarium and has a "material financial conflict concerning the Marine Life Protection Act."

Sutton serves as corporate officer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and was paid $138,357 in 2006, plus $30,832 in employee benefits and deferred compensation.

Aquarium Trustee Margaret Caldwell who is a Blue Ribbon Task Force member, is also is conflicted or compromised because she's a member of the governing body of Sutton's employer, has influence over Sutton's direct financial interest and yet serves as an advisor to him on matters regarding the MLPA.

"The views of the Aquarium in actively supporting Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely known as the Aquarium is a vocal advocate for ocean closures through the imposition of MPAs," the document reads. "The Aquarium was actively engaged in lobbying for adoption of the Central Coast MPAs and currently is engaged in lobbying the Commission for the adoption of the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) for the North Central Coast over all other alternatives presented to the Commission by the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), an advisory body to the Commission regarding the MLPA.

"Commissioner Sutton, as the Aquarium's Vice President and Director of the Center for Future of the Oceans has been equally vocal in his advocacy for the IPA. The public record of Commission meetings leaves no doubt that Commissioner Sutton advocates for ocean closures through imposition of MPAs and advocates for speedy adoption of regulations to implement the IPA for the North Central Coast. In fact, the Aquarium has posted on its website an electronic communication (Attachment B) asking the Commission to 'Please approve the IPA with no further cuts to protect California's North Central Coast . . .' One only needs to add one's name and address and click on the website to transmit this communication to the Commission."

The recreational fishermen are way out gunned by the Packard Foundation and they are coming to your neighborhood next
__________________

[Finaddict]

I hope this answers some questions about MPA's. It is not just a surf-fisherman threat, boaters, divers and others are at threat here as well. Expansion of the MPA's are iminent. Anything over 3 mi. off shore is considered Fed. waters as well.

Divers and fishermen worry about possible expansion of marine sanctuary
By SUSAN WEST


Fishermen and divers urged federal officials to hold-the-course and not expand the boundaries of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary at a meeting Thursday, Dec. 4, at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum.

"I'm more than happy with the status quo"?, John Pieno, owner of a diving business in Hatteras, told representatives of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

Pieno said he did not support expansion of the sanctuary to include other shipwrecks, such as merchant vessels sunk by German U-boats during World War II. Increased restrictions on anchoring vessels and fishing would prove harmful to Outer Banks communities, he said.

The meeting at the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum was one in a series of public scoping meetings held as revision of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary management plan gets underway.

The wreck of the Civil War ironclad rests about 16 miles offshore of Cape Hatteras. In 1975, the one-mile area surrounding the wreck became the country's first national marine sanctuary.

The sanctuary is managed by a plan written in 1983 that protects the wreck from damage by human activities, such as vessel anchoring and fishing, and controls access to the site through a permitting system.

David Alberg, Monitor Sanctuary superintendent, said a comprehensive review is long overdue.

"Ideally management plans should be reviewed every five years, but that's not a federal requirement,"? he explained.

Public comment Thursday indicated that restricted access to additional offshore waters is a huge concern for many Outer Banks residents.

Steve Wilson of Ocracoke drew a comparison to the creation of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and subsequent restrictions on off-road vehicle and pedestrian access to the seashore.

"I've learned, there are no guarantees, and expanding the sanctuary could have unforeseen consequences detrimental to the villages,"? Wilson warned.

Hatteras charter-boat captain and sanctuary advisory council member Jay Kavanagh added, "The concern is that any expansion could be a vehicle to introduce future fishing restrictions."?

The National Marine Fisheries Service regulates fishing in federal waters, but sanctuary management also affects fishing. In 2007, protected areas within the Channel Islands Sanctuary were expanded to permanently ban fishing in almost 111 square miles.

Alberg noted that while comments Thursday night in Hatteras ran against expansion of the sanctuary, comments at other public meetings have supported protection of resources outside of the current site. He said all comments would be reviewed.

Expansion of existing sanctuaries is not uncommon. In November, an updated management plan for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary off California increased the size of the protected area by 775 square feet. Expansion of the Flowers Garden Banks Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico has been proposed, and legislation expanding the Thunder Bay Sanctuary was introduced last summer.

Alberg said the Monitor management review process is expected to take anywhere from two to three years. A draft management plan should be developed by the summer of 2010.

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries will take comments on management of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary until February 1, 2009. Comments can be sent to shannon.ricles@noaa.gov or to Monitor NMS, 100 Museum Dr., Newport News, Va. 23606. More information is available at http://monitor.noaa.gov.

[albiealert]

This is pretty interesting, I had no idea all these areas were proposed on the East Coast. FinAddict, I went to the link you put up and checked it out for Connecticut. There is only 1, the McKinney NWR. I'll put it up here so folks who have never been there can check it out.

I hope they don't broaden this area to the shores of Connecticut. There is so little access here right now it would be terrible if they did that. Most of the guys I know find their access points near the rivers that flow into the sound because they are the most open areas. In many other areas, you have to know someone to fish. I thank you for putting it up. To be honest, I kind of thought MPAs were a California thing.

BTW, I looked at how many proposed MPAs they have in California - 63? Could that possibly be correct? We should all get involved in this. I'm going to put a thread in the Connecticut forum with a link here. Thanks, FinAddict.



Stewart B. McKinney
National Wildlife Refuge733 Old Clinton Road
Westbrook, CT 06498



There is no crabbing, fishing, or boating access from the refuge. However, Gatchen Creek and Menunketesuck River adjacent to the refuge, provide good areas for crabbing and kayaking. These areas may be accessed from the public boat launch on Rt 145 in Westbrook.



A waterfowl hunting program began in 2005 on 165 acres of the Great Meadows Unit. Waterfowl hunting is allowed in designed areas of this unit and requires a permit from the Refuge. There is no hunting on any other part of the refuge. Retrieval from refuge property is not allowed. Please contact the refuge for updates and further details.

[Finaddict]

IMO, this is just the begining. Without getting too political, Obama has overturned Bush's "relaxation of EA, EIS and ESA guidelines. The NEPA as we know it has to be rewritten, because the NEPA relies on the EA, EIS and ESA for guidelines.

Yes, it is something we need to keep an eye on. I have know this for years, telling people about it and they just turn thier cheek. Well, it coming, get ready.

Have we learned nothing from the OBX issue?

[dogfish]

IMO, this is just the begining. Without getting too political, Obama has overturned Bush's "relaxation of EA, EIS and ESA guidelines. The NEPA as we know it has to be rewritten, because the NEPA relies on the EA, EIS and ESA for guidelines.

Yes, it is something we need to keep an eye on. I have know this for years, telling people about it and they just turn thier cheek. Well, it coming, get ready.

Have we learned nothing from the OBX issue?

I learned the golden rules from reading up on that. Those
who have the gold, make the rules.

[basshunter]

There is a lot of misconception on MPA'S. People assume that that if an area is protected than you can not fish there. In reality there are many MPA'S that have access for recreational purposes including fishing.

Here is a link to the government MPA site and it discusses misconceptions.

http://mpa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources...nceptions2.pdf

[seamonkey]

This time they added 2 National seashores in the Carolinas to the list. Where will it end?


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DATE: January 13, 2010
CONTACT: Cyndy Holda, 252-473-2111, ext. 148

North Carolina?s Two National Seashores among the 21 National Park Units
Being Considered by NOAA?s Marine Protected Areas Status

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?s (NOAA) National
Marine Protected Areas Center, in cooperation with the Department of the
Interior (DOI) has created a first ever inventory of the nation?s marine
protected areas. This unique, comprehensive inventory catalogs and
classifies marine protected areas within US waters. Thirty-two sites,
including twenty-one units of the National Park System and several national
wildlife refuges, have been nominated to join the national system of Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs). Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores
are among the national seashores listed in the Federal Register last week.

Developed in response to Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas,
the final framework for the national system was published on November 19,
2008. Comments on the nominations to the national system are due February
22, 2010. For more information, check NOAA website at: www.mpa.gov or
submit comments to: mpa.comments@noaa.gov .

[DarkSkies]

This is no joke my friends. Look what is happening on the west coast.

http://www.976-tuna.com/e107_files/p...0_scan0009.jpg

And it continues....thanks for raising the awareness, Finadict....way back when folks didn't think it was possible.....





As submitted by Finchaser, thanks!

RFA RAISES CONCERN ABOUT SANCTUARY EXPANSION
New No-Fishing Zones Coming to Northern California?

The proposed expansion of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries set off alarms in the fishing community when the federal government published a map of the area that also contained all the marine protected areas (MPA) established under the Marine Life Protection Act.

According to the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), anglers have been bracing themselves against the extension of these MPAs in state waters, into federal waters outside 3 miles.

The National Marine Sanctuary system was established with the support of many fishing organizations because they wanted to protect critical fishing grounds from oil drilling and other industrial uses that could degrade the habitat our fished species depend on. Over time, however, anglers have witnessed a kind of "mission creep," with Sanctuary staff seeking authority to make their own fishing regulations.

An example of this was the establishment of no-fishing zones around the Channel Islands. Indeed the Gulf of the Farallones management plan contains outlines of a system of marine protected areas within its boundaries.

One well-known charter skipper said that NOAA Sanctuaries' regular support for efforts and proposals which either create or expand no-fishing zones and MPAs is indicative of an agency which is ignoring both the recreational and commercial fishing community. "There may be no current agenda items related to no-fishing zones at the time that boundary expansion is being considered, but it is certain that such agenda items will come up in the future and NOAA Sanctuaries has an unwavering history of ignoring fishermen during battles over closing areas to fishing," the captain noted.



Recreational fishermen can find out more about the proposed plan to expand (more than double) the existing National Marine Sanctuaries in Northern California by visiting http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/northern_area.html where you can also submit your own public comment.

"The RFA submitted a comment questioning why the map originally posted by the Sanctuaries on their website contained the MLPA maps," said Jim Martin, RFA's West Coast Regional Director. "If this is all about protecting the coast from oil drilling, why were they referencing all the new marine reserves?"

According to Martin, within 24 hours of RFA submitting questions, a new map was posted without the MPAs.

"Poof, just like that," Martin said. "I wished it were so easy to get rid of them in reality - and that's what has us worried about this proposed expansion."

Josh Russo, President of the Waterman's Alliance, a statewide divers' advocacy group, pointed out that the sanctuaries have a regular process by which they can propose new regulations, or expand their boundaries, but in this case they aren't following their own rules. "If these sanctuaries can circumvent their own established procedure, folks in other areas of the country ought to be concerned that similar moves will be made in other states as well."

That's why the RFA is asking our members, across the nation, to weigh in with a brief comment opposing the sanctuary expansion until there are written guarantees for our continued access to public fisheries. Oppose this "land grab" and demand guarantees for fisheries within the Sanctuary boundaries.

There are two public meetings in Northern California coming up in February where you can comment in person and ask questions about the plan.

Pt. Arena, CA
DATE: February 12, 2013
LOCATION: Point Arena High School
ADDRESS: 185 Lake Street, Point Arena, CA 95468
TIME: 6 p.m.

Gualala, CA
DATE: February 13, 2013
LOCATION: Gualala Community Center
ADDRESS: 47950 Center St., Gualala, CA
TIME: 6 p.m.

[DarkSkies]

Here is a letter that has been written...very easy to C&P and send......please do it if you can find the time.....thanks!





"If you can't make it to one of these public hearings, we strongly urge RFA members to take 3 minutes and submit public comment online," Martin said. Public comment must be received by March 1 and can be submitted electronically via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.


1. To mail in your comments, send to:




Maria Brown, Sanctuary Superintendent
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
991Marine Drive, The Presidio
San Francisco, CA 94129



2. You can also use the sample letter below by copying and pasting into the comments section at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2012-0228








Dear Ms. Brown,

I am writing to oppose the expansion of the Gulf of Farallones and Cordell Banks National Marine Sanctuaries. I do not support additional no-fishing zones.

The Sanctuaries need to guarantee in writing that they will not be proposing, implementing or promulgating fishing regulations within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, including marine protected areas. Until then, we will have a constant battle between the fishing community and the Sanctuaries, rather than a partnership. The Sanctuary does not have staff with the biological expertise, nor the experience with existing fishery management required to get involved with fishery management.

I question whether the Sanctuary has the authority to more than double its size on its own, citing Section 304(e) of the National Marine Sanctuary Act. If it does, what is the limit to Sanctuary authorities?

I question whether simply expanding the Sanctuary will have any effect, one way or another, on the ocean "upwellings" in the area, the "protection" of which is the stated purpose of the expansion.

I request that the public comment period be extended to allow the Pacific Fisheries Management Council to consider the expansion and comment.

Respectfully,

(Your Name and address)

[DarkSkies]

I wasn't sure where to post this, so if it needs to be moved, feel free.

I have been telling everyone the Marine Protected Areas (MPA) were coming. This is yet another attempt to limit our access to the fisheries and resources. If you do not belong to an organization fighting for your access rights, we need your support today.

Please click on the link to see where in your state MPA's have been proposed. I am working on counter measures here in DE.

http://mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/nomsites_state3_17_09.pdf

4 years ago Finaddict had the foresight to warn us about this.
Many anglers believed it could never happen on the East Coast.....

The latest issue of the RFA electronic newsletter, sent in by Finchaser, details such MPAs on the East Coast,
1.Florida
2. and Mass.....
(pages 17-23)
http://issuu.com/recreationalfishing...398763/4717047









**Is there anyone out there who still doubts some enviro groups will propose MPAs in NJ in the near future?
Would appreciate any further thoughts or opinions.......

[voyager35]

I think that due to the sheer nature of the environmental groups, they are very well organized and committed. Hard to find that level of committment among fishermen so in the future I think they could be successful in getting these mpas in NJ. My .02

[njdiver]

We already have them:

http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov...ew_jersey.html

http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov...as_wallmap.pdf

[fishinmission78]

njdiver thanks for posting. I went to the link at the top and this is what it said.

"As New Jersey’s first Marine Conservation Zone, the Sedge Islands/Island Beach State Park Marine Conservation Zone was designed to reduce the environmental impacts of personal watercraft and better manage wildlife, recreation and traditional uses of the area. "



When I look at that map and the restrictions there is puzzles me. I fish down there a lot and am telling you the PWCs ride in there all the time. I don't see any marine police busting them. If the language above says they are restricted how come nothing is done about it?
As far as fishing I don't think there should be restrictions there it has some of the best night fishing on the Island.

[hookset]

This is no joke my friends.

Nice call FA. Way back in 2009 the alarms were being sounded and no one thought it would happen in NJ.

http://www.examiner.com/article/sena...habitat-bill-1