CAPT'N
08-28-2008, 08:43 PM
Hi,
a member of our club took the time to put together this info. If you fish the ocean-YOU BETTER READ THIS !
MLPA AND YOU!
Ready or Not Our Time Has Come!
For at least two years, our fishing fraternity has been hearing speakers, reading in the media and listening to discussions among members about that mysterious process called the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). We can get a pretty good hint of how this will impact our future fishing rights by reviewing decisions made along the
Central Coast (CCSR) and also the North Central Coast (NCCSR)
What is the MLPA? WHY DO SO FEW OF US GET INVOLVED?
Read about what happened to help you understand and help you to make your own decisions. The current process in Southern California involves the area from Pt. Conception to the Mexican border. Originally passed into California law in 1999, MLPA languished for want of funding. The act was written to preserve the state’s oceanic resources- i.e. up to 3 miles from shore. The lack of funds was overcome when in 2005 a public/private partnership was formed between the California Resource Agency and a new entity called the Resource Legal Fund Foundation (RLFF) and Department of Fish & Game via an additional initiative called the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI). A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was executed guaranteeing the Blue Ribbon Task Force-(BRFT) major discretion in the choice of alternatives.
Alternatives are the areas targeted for restrictions or closures. The BRTF is a politically appointed body which holds hearings, gets scientific advice, deals with the appointed regional stakeholders and then makes recommendations to the Dept. of Fish &Game concerning restrictions and what extractive activities, if any, may take place.
There is some suggestion that private foundations, which because of their financial underwriting may exercise an unfair influence on a public process.
The Central Coast phase, now completed, stretched from Pigeon Point – San Mateo County to Pt. Conception- Santa Barbara County. It was the first of five study areas- Central Coast Study Region (CCSR)- planned along California’s 1100 mile coast.
Restrictions for the Central Coast have been announced and they went into effect in Sept. 07, 2007 composed of 29 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) approximating about 18% of that part of our coast. It is understood that RLFF would bear the costs of this implementation, including some salaries and that RLFF is funded by some major foundations. Indeed, Coastside Fishing Club, a major player, had brought a suit challenging this private funding but did not prevail in court.
The North Central Coast region (NCCSR) runs from Alder Creek (Mendocino County) to Pigeon Point (San Mateo County). Proposals for the North Central Coast were presented June 11th and final regulations are to be adopted by the end of the year.
Proposals containing elements suggested by the various north / central coast stakeholders were identified as options: 1-3, 2-XA, and 4, the numbers represent certain specific areas selected by the various stakeholders, including scientists, fishermen both recreational and commercial, processors, party boat owners, landing operators, etc.
The fishing public should also note that the composition of the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRFT) consists of politically appointed members and not necessarily fishermen familiar with the issues. A Scientific Advisory Team (SAT) was to offer the best available scientific input. Some of their conclusions were challenged by the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC). It had engaged some renowned scientists whose conclusions were sometimes at odds with those of DFG.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR OUR AREA?
When it comes to the Southcoast study region (SCSR) a number of hearings will be held by DFG/BRTF and input will be furnished after extensive reports by the Southcoast Regional Stakeholder Groups. There will be socio-economic studies, and recreational and commercial interests will be represented by their stakeholders. Stakeholders should be well prepared as the hearings have the BRTF panel supported by the DFG and their specially selected science advisors as possible adversaries.
Stakeholders representing various interests must meet certain criteria for their selection. Selections will be made to achieve diversity in the process. Final appointments will be made by the Chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Head of the California Department of Fish & Game. Applications for stake holders are being solicited beginning in July.
It is through this process that the MPA proposals are presented. The members of the BRTF will have the final say and convey their decisions to the Fish & Game Commission for execution. At the final North Central hearings for instance, proposals ranged from 18% to 27% of the total areas. The more restrictive numbers were endorsed by National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), a non governmental organization with an extreme no fishing viewpoint. Some NGO’s are adamant about closing down our fisheries.
The Los Angeles Rod and Reel Club (LARRC) and other recreational groups will abide by any law passed in the interest of preserving the oceans. We should work however to assure a level playing field. Some shortcomings in the process have already become apparent in the work done so far. Perhaps there were some lessons to be learned. Our major concerns should rest with the following: input and funding by private organizations into a public process; refusal to include the effects of pollution, climate changes, and water quality in the decision making process; existing restrictions already in place; fairness in the choice of administrative board members. Enforcement of restrictions dealing with habitat deterioration and excessive takes should also be on this list.
SOME MAJOR PLAYERS
Among the many stakeholder groups are two important major players striving to maintain ‘their’ fisheries. One is the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC). They represent most of the various commercial fishing organizations and their alliance also includes the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). CFC consists of 23 commercial and recreational organizations. They claim to represent 14,000 fishermen operating 4,000 vessels carrying one million passengers and having 172,000 employees. Total economic value is pegged at $5.5B. (Statistics quoted are from 2006.)
The second major group is the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans.(PSO). This newly minted organization includes Sportfishing Assn of California,(SAC), Southern
California Marine Assn., Coastside Fishing Club, American Sportfishing Assn (ASA), National Marine Mfg. Assn, Northern Cal Kayakers and United Anglers of Southern California (UASC). Sportfishing in California is worth $2.7B with tax revenue generated at $336M.
Additionally keep in mind restrictions already in place for the Channel Islands.
NOAA describes these as a network of MPAs. Eleven of these marine reserves allow no take and harvest. Two Marine Conservation areas allow a limited take of lobsters and pelagic species. This MPA network encompasses 241 square nautical miles (318 square miles) making it the largest network off the continental U.S. You should also be aware that the State Parks and Recreation Commission has introduced itself into the process in order to control shore angling and abalone dive sites among others in the State Park system. Their overall policy on the MLPA is not yet clear.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
1-We are all stakeholders in a way. So communicate with the local stakeholder representatives. They will convey our wishes to the committees at the hearing and also create plausible documents for the decision makers. This means identifying your regional stakeholder representative. He will be working on your behalf. Does your club have representation? The need is urgent.
2-You should write a letter to Government officials indicating your wants and objections. The recent request to write letters supporting proposal 2X-A is but one example. It represented the optimal choice for both recreational and commercial fishermen during the north central deliberations. It is a form of direct lobbying!
3-Attend some of the local meetings which you will be made aware of in the media or on the various websites. This is an excellent way to familiarize yourself – carpool with a buddy. Currently a few workshops have been announced. Dealing with socio-economic matters, they’ve been scheduled for places like San Pedro, Oxnard, etc. These are being conducted by an outfit called “Ecotrust”, which has been engaged by the state to collect data on fishing uses and values which will affect marine protected area planning. The first meetings in Southern California were recently announced. See the addendum to this for details. Also attend some of the informational workshops some of which have already been announced for June.
4-Call on your environmental committee to keep you posted and offer them your input.
.
5-Refer to the attached listing of web contacts where you can find current information. Meetings, workshops, fundraisers, and other items re: the MLPA process will be posted on the LARRC.org website. Simply select “Announcements” to get the latest.
6-Your continued membership in an organized fishing group will allow it to lobby more effectively with the weight of numbers behind it and lend financial support for the multitude of activities surely to take place.
LISTING OF WEB ADDRESSES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Channel Islands – http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html
Marine News Mail Lists – http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/mailinglist.asp
BRTF Comments - http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/publiccomments.asp
Governor- http://gov.ca.go/interact
Resources Secretary- secretary@resources.ca.gov
Nominations to be Stakeholder: MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov
916-653-8102 (Attn, Melissa Miller-Henson
MLPAI c/o Calif. Resource Agency
1416 Ninth St. Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
Schedules for future meetings – 916-654-1885 or visit
www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa
This informative was developed by the Los Angeles Rod & Reel Club (LARRC.org) as a public service. It is our hope that all concerned fishermen will engage in some part of the process. Truly our future fisheries are at stake. Wide distribution of this document can only help disseminate the information. This might help preserve an important part of our lives.
Workshops to introduce the public to the MLPA process have been scheduled in Santa Barbara, Oxnard, Santa Monica, Huntington Beach, Encinitas and San Diego. Others will be planned. July 08 through December 2008 will see various bodies such as the Blue Ribbon Task Force, Science Advisory Team and the Southern California Regional Stakeholders Group appointed. There will be a round of hearings to develop MPA choices from January to September 2009. The final choices will be announced during the final quarter of 2009 and we will see the conclusion of the process for the south coast.
a member of our club took the time to put together this info. If you fish the ocean-YOU BETTER READ THIS !
MLPA AND YOU!
Ready or Not Our Time Has Come!
For at least two years, our fishing fraternity has been hearing speakers, reading in the media and listening to discussions among members about that mysterious process called the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). We can get a pretty good hint of how this will impact our future fishing rights by reviewing decisions made along the
Central Coast (CCSR) and also the North Central Coast (NCCSR)
What is the MLPA? WHY DO SO FEW OF US GET INVOLVED?
Read about what happened to help you understand and help you to make your own decisions. The current process in Southern California involves the area from Pt. Conception to the Mexican border. Originally passed into California law in 1999, MLPA languished for want of funding. The act was written to preserve the state’s oceanic resources- i.e. up to 3 miles from shore. The lack of funds was overcome when in 2005 a public/private partnership was formed between the California Resource Agency and a new entity called the Resource Legal Fund Foundation (RLFF) and Department of Fish & Game via an additional initiative called the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI). A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was executed guaranteeing the Blue Ribbon Task Force-(BRFT) major discretion in the choice of alternatives.
Alternatives are the areas targeted for restrictions or closures. The BRTF is a politically appointed body which holds hearings, gets scientific advice, deals with the appointed regional stakeholders and then makes recommendations to the Dept. of Fish &Game concerning restrictions and what extractive activities, if any, may take place.
There is some suggestion that private foundations, which because of their financial underwriting may exercise an unfair influence on a public process.
The Central Coast phase, now completed, stretched from Pigeon Point – San Mateo County to Pt. Conception- Santa Barbara County. It was the first of five study areas- Central Coast Study Region (CCSR)- planned along California’s 1100 mile coast.
Restrictions for the Central Coast have been announced and they went into effect in Sept. 07, 2007 composed of 29 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) approximating about 18% of that part of our coast. It is understood that RLFF would bear the costs of this implementation, including some salaries and that RLFF is funded by some major foundations. Indeed, Coastside Fishing Club, a major player, had brought a suit challenging this private funding but did not prevail in court.
The North Central Coast region (NCCSR) runs from Alder Creek (Mendocino County) to Pigeon Point (San Mateo County). Proposals for the North Central Coast were presented June 11th and final regulations are to be adopted by the end of the year.
Proposals containing elements suggested by the various north / central coast stakeholders were identified as options: 1-3, 2-XA, and 4, the numbers represent certain specific areas selected by the various stakeholders, including scientists, fishermen both recreational and commercial, processors, party boat owners, landing operators, etc.
The fishing public should also note that the composition of the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRFT) consists of politically appointed members and not necessarily fishermen familiar with the issues. A Scientific Advisory Team (SAT) was to offer the best available scientific input. Some of their conclusions were challenged by the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC). It had engaged some renowned scientists whose conclusions were sometimes at odds with those of DFG.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR OUR AREA?
When it comes to the Southcoast study region (SCSR) a number of hearings will be held by DFG/BRTF and input will be furnished after extensive reports by the Southcoast Regional Stakeholder Groups. There will be socio-economic studies, and recreational and commercial interests will be represented by their stakeholders. Stakeholders should be well prepared as the hearings have the BRTF panel supported by the DFG and their specially selected science advisors as possible adversaries.
Stakeholders representing various interests must meet certain criteria for their selection. Selections will be made to achieve diversity in the process. Final appointments will be made by the Chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Head of the California Department of Fish & Game. Applications for stake holders are being solicited beginning in July.
It is through this process that the MPA proposals are presented. The members of the BRTF will have the final say and convey their decisions to the Fish & Game Commission for execution. At the final North Central hearings for instance, proposals ranged from 18% to 27% of the total areas. The more restrictive numbers were endorsed by National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), a non governmental organization with an extreme no fishing viewpoint. Some NGO’s are adamant about closing down our fisheries.
The Los Angeles Rod and Reel Club (LARRC) and other recreational groups will abide by any law passed in the interest of preserving the oceans. We should work however to assure a level playing field. Some shortcomings in the process have already become apparent in the work done so far. Perhaps there were some lessons to be learned. Our major concerns should rest with the following: input and funding by private organizations into a public process; refusal to include the effects of pollution, climate changes, and water quality in the decision making process; existing restrictions already in place; fairness in the choice of administrative board members. Enforcement of restrictions dealing with habitat deterioration and excessive takes should also be on this list.
SOME MAJOR PLAYERS
Among the many stakeholder groups are two important major players striving to maintain ‘their’ fisheries. One is the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC). They represent most of the various commercial fishing organizations and their alliance also includes the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). CFC consists of 23 commercial and recreational organizations. They claim to represent 14,000 fishermen operating 4,000 vessels carrying one million passengers and having 172,000 employees. Total economic value is pegged at $5.5B. (Statistics quoted are from 2006.)
The second major group is the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans.(PSO). This newly minted organization includes Sportfishing Assn of California,(SAC), Southern
California Marine Assn., Coastside Fishing Club, American Sportfishing Assn (ASA), National Marine Mfg. Assn, Northern Cal Kayakers and United Anglers of Southern California (UASC). Sportfishing in California is worth $2.7B with tax revenue generated at $336M.
Additionally keep in mind restrictions already in place for the Channel Islands.
NOAA describes these as a network of MPAs. Eleven of these marine reserves allow no take and harvest. Two Marine Conservation areas allow a limited take of lobsters and pelagic species. This MPA network encompasses 241 square nautical miles (318 square miles) making it the largest network off the continental U.S. You should also be aware that the State Parks and Recreation Commission has introduced itself into the process in order to control shore angling and abalone dive sites among others in the State Park system. Their overall policy on the MLPA is not yet clear.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
1-We are all stakeholders in a way. So communicate with the local stakeholder representatives. They will convey our wishes to the committees at the hearing and also create plausible documents for the decision makers. This means identifying your regional stakeholder representative. He will be working on your behalf. Does your club have representation? The need is urgent.
2-You should write a letter to Government officials indicating your wants and objections. The recent request to write letters supporting proposal 2X-A is but one example. It represented the optimal choice for both recreational and commercial fishermen during the north central deliberations. It is a form of direct lobbying!
3-Attend some of the local meetings which you will be made aware of in the media or on the various websites. This is an excellent way to familiarize yourself – carpool with a buddy. Currently a few workshops have been announced. Dealing with socio-economic matters, they’ve been scheduled for places like San Pedro, Oxnard, etc. These are being conducted by an outfit called “Ecotrust”, which has been engaged by the state to collect data on fishing uses and values which will affect marine protected area planning. The first meetings in Southern California were recently announced. See the addendum to this for details. Also attend some of the informational workshops some of which have already been announced for June.
4-Call on your environmental committee to keep you posted and offer them your input.
.
5-Refer to the attached listing of web contacts where you can find current information. Meetings, workshops, fundraisers, and other items re: the MLPA process will be posted on the LARRC.org website. Simply select “Announcements” to get the latest.
6-Your continued membership in an organized fishing group will allow it to lobby more effectively with the weight of numbers behind it and lend financial support for the multitude of activities surely to take place.
LISTING OF WEB ADDRESSES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Channel Islands – http://channelislands.noaa.gov/marineres/main.html
Marine News Mail Lists – http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/mailinglist.asp
BRTF Comments - http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/publiccomments.asp
Governor- http://gov.ca.go/interact
Resources Secretary- secretary@resources.ca.gov
Nominations to be Stakeholder: MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov
916-653-8102 (Attn, Melissa Miller-Henson
MLPAI c/o Calif. Resource Agency
1416 Ninth St. Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
Schedules for future meetings – 916-654-1885 or visit
www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa
This informative was developed by the Los Angeles Rod & Reel Club (LARRC.org) as a public service. It is our hope that all concerned fishermen will engage in some part of the process. Truly our future fisheries are at stake. Wide distribution of this document can only help disseminate the information. This might help preserve an important part of our lives.
Workshops to introduce the public to the MLPA process have been scheduled in Santa Barbara, Oxnard, Santa Monica, Huntington Beach, Encinitas and San Diego. Others will be planned. July 08 through December 2008 will see various bodies such as the Blue Ribbon Task Force, Science Advisory Team and the Southern California Regional Stakeholders Group appointed. There will be a round of hearings to develop MPA choices from January to September 2009. The final choices will be announced during the final quarter of 2009 and we will see the conclusion of the process for the south coast.