Fishermen - What you don't know can hurt you

[BucketHead]

I am normally not a terribly political person. But I am an activist when it comes to our "Right to Fish". With the upcoming election nearing I want you to know that Proposition 21 was written and proposed by Extreme Environmental Groups (EEG's). These EEG's have initiated a plan to eliminate access to our most productive coastal fishing spots. The "Marine Life Protection Act" has targeted our prime fishing spots with "Marine Protected Areas (MPA's)". The biggest question all along has been "How are they going to fund the enforcement of these areas?". Proposition 21 is it. It looks like 21 will improve our state parks, but the bottom line is funding for MPA enforcement by adding $18 to each vehicle registration every two years. This will create tax revenues of $500 million. It currently takes $130 million to run our park system.
I ask you all to do your own research. If you choose not to please join me in voting NO on Proposition 21. EEG's have billions of dollars in foundation grant money to back them. We only have a vote. VOTE NO on 21.
Any Questions?
Please respond

[fishin fool]

You say the following:
I am normally not a terribly political person. But I am an activist when it comes to our "Right to Fish". With the upcoming election nearing I want you to know that Proposition 21 was written and proposed by Extreme Environmental Groups (EEG's). These EEG's have initiated a plan to eliminate access to our most productive coastal fishing spots. The "Marine Life Protection Act" has targeted our prime fishing spots with "Marine Protected Areas (MPA's)".
Where do you get your information? Is it somewhere we can all research. If so, please share it. If it was from a news outlet, please site independent sources for us to review.
Thanks in advance,
Fishin Fool

[Levianth]

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_21,_Vehicle_License_Fee_for _Parks_(2010)

Create your own opinion but lets just hope they actually use the money for the parks.

[fishin fool]

I went to that thread and found a blank page. I've carefully studied the propositions and have found nothing to support your claims so far. I'm open to learning more about this one. It sounds like someone is being loose with the facts on this...

[flytyingreloader]

Just another farking tax/fee/revenue scam. NO vote from me.

[fishin fool]

It does take money from taxes to maintain our natural resources and wild areas. Taxes and fees have been demonized by the Republican Party in the last 30 years. The trick is to get value for the taxes we pay. Contrary to popular opinion, California has the fourth lowest ratio of public employees as compared to population of any state. We have structural problems caused by initiatives we have passed with fine print from special interests that make governing the state almost impossible. We need wise management to protect our fish stocks and that can at time require cessation of fishing in some areas to allow the fisheries to recover.
fishin fool

[BucketHead]

You say the following:
I am normally not a terribly political person. But I am an activist when it comes to our "Right to Fish". With the upcoming election nearing I want you to know that Proposition 21 was written and proposed by Extreme Environmental Groups (EEG's). These EEG's have initiated a plan to eliminate access to our most productive coastal fishing spots. The "Marine Life Protection Act" has targeted our prime fishing spots with "Marine Protected Areas (MPA's)".
Where do you get your information? Is it somewhere we can all research. If so, please share it. If it was from a news outlet, please site independent sources for us to review.
Thanks in advance,
Fishin Fool

Sorry for the delayed response. I have attended many of the "town hall sessions" regarding the "MLPA" process. To make a very long story short I would direct you to the "United Anglers of Southern California" (UASC)website. You could also refer to the "Sporfishing Association of California" (SAC) website. Also, refer to your "CA General Election Information Guide". Within this guide, look at the "Allocation of Surcharge Revenues". This should raise a brow. With that said, to witness the craftiness of the EEG's in person has put a thorn under my nail.

[BucketHead]

If you had any knowledge of the MLPA process you should know that NorCal has already been screwed. The MLPA information, zoning/areas, can be found on the DFG site. The NorCal areas are cast in stone but have not been implmented because of the expense to enforce and regulate these protected areas. No on 21.

[BucketHead]

It does take money from taxes to maintain our natural resources and wild areas. Taxes and fees have been demonized by the Republican Party in the last 30 years. The trick is to get value for the taxes we pay. Contrary to popular opinion, California has the fourth lowest ratio of public employees as compared to population of any state. We have structural problems caused by initiatives we have passed with fine print from special interests that make governing the state almost impossible. We need wise management to protect our fish stocks and that can at time require cessation of fishing in some areas to allow the fisheries to recover.
fishin fool

I understand and agree. Conservation is needed to protect the future of our fisheries. I also believe that true scientific studies should be implemented to assess stocks that may or may not need stricter conservation efforts. As the MPA's proceeded we as fisherman were asked to give up the locations of our most productive fishing spots. The information was given in hopes of coming to a mutual agreement regarding conservation. Instead the EEG's took our most productive spots and targeted all of them. Three different proposals were drafted by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. While we were all asleep the EEG's held behind closed door meetings with the California Fish and Game Comission. Through a lawsuit, a judge issued an order to release the minutes/recordings of said meetings. This has yet to be released as ordered, but we do know that the proposal that has the least favor for fisherman was adopted. The map of all areas can be fouind on the DFG website.
This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue where FISHERMAN need to come together and make a stand for our future.

[Which Way Out]

Don't feed the Beast:My Two Cents:

[BucketHead]

A little late, but for your info:
PROPOSITION 21 AND MLPA

OUTDOOR ENTHUSIASTS AND SPORTSMEN:
BE AWARE OF HOW YOUR MONEY CAN BE USED UNDER PROP. 21

We have been getting many calls at our United Anglers of Southern California office asking about Prop. 21, especially since Fish and Game Commissioner Mike Sutton mentioned at an October 20 meeting that funds raised through this measure could be used to help fund the MLPA. We hope to shed some light on this subject and help people make their own informed decisions.
On California's November 2 ballot, Prop. 21 is known as the "State Parks Act." It proposes to increase vehicle license fees in the state by $18 per year to raise about $500 million for a dedicated fund for the state's 278 parks.
It's easy to see why many might approve of this concept, given the lack of available funding to support our state's public lands. Many recreational anglers are also dedicated conservationists and enjoy and appreciate California's wide open spaces. We want to see them well funded, well managed and well cared for.
What many anglers may not know is that some of the money raised through increased vehicle license fees could end up funding the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). The MLPA has been largely criticized by recreational fishermen, divers and others for its lack of true science, covert decision making and lack of funding for implementation and enforcement. Those running the MLPA are also currently under California Superior Court order to provide documents requested for review by attorneys representing the marine/fishing industry and anglers' groups. This information has not been provided.
According to the allocation breakdown of the expected $500 million raised annually from the $18 car tax, approximately $35 million a year would go to the Department of Fish and Game for management and operation of lands, $20 million to the Ocean Protection Council, $10 million to state land conservancies and $10 million to the Wildlife Conservation Fund. State parks would receive $375 million per year, urban river parkways another $20 million and $25 million to local agencies for "lost fee revenue."
While not spelled out in the wording of Prop 21, even members of the California Fish and Game Commission admit that some Prop 21 money would be used to help fund the yearly cost of Marine Protected Areas. The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force and Commissioner Mike Sutton estimate the annual cost at $11 million; the Department of Fish and Game (the state agency responsible for enforcement) puts that figure at an estimated $40 million.
According to an October 21 commentary by San Diego Union Tribune Outdoor Writer Ed Zieralski, Sutton commented at a recent commission meeting "all will be well with the environmental world once Proposition 21 passes and there's plenty of money for the MLPA." To learn more, read the entire article at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...on-hard-prove/
Given that Marine Protected Areas currently proposed under the MLPA would close or restrict recreational fishing access in prime locations along the entire length of our state's coastline (for example, a total of 16.6% of Southern California's coastal/island waters between Point Conception and the Mexican border), anglers need to be aware of a sobering fact: Your own money could be used to keep you out of your favorite fishing spots.
The angling community is in favor of marine conservation based on sound science and proven fisheries management methods. We are not against Marine Protected Areas, per se, and proposed our own network (Workgroup Proposal 2) that would achieve most of the MLPA's conservation goals while minimizing impact to recreational anglers. We do oppose the direction the MLPA process is currently taking, and the "just go fish somewhere else" attitude of many of our state's commissioners. As we have repeatedly stated at meetings up and down our state, shore fishermen and divers, kayak anglers, families and others with limited options for safe and practical access stand to be hurt the most under the current plan.
Whether to vote for or against Proposition 21 is a decision that every Californian - and every outdoorsman - must make for himself. United Anglers of Southern California requests that you review the contents of the measure carefully and make your decision with all the facts.