Marine Life Protection Act .... Say Goodbye To Nearshore Fishing!!

[Howling Mad Murdock]

KC,

I think you are missing my point entirely. Just like the MLPA, there are restrictions, closures and other limitations on harvesting these species to help repopulate the species.

At any rate, I will look into researching the discussion we have goign at the moment, in between the time I have reading general plans and zoning ordinances.


Kevin

[KID CREOLE]

KC,

I think you are missing my point entirely. Just like the MLPA, there are restrictions, closures and other limitations on harvesting these species to help repopulate the species.

At any rate, I will look into researching the discussion we have goign at the moment, in between the time I have reading general plans and zoning ordinances.


Kevin

Kevin,

IMHO ther is no difference in managing fish stock over wildlife. If you look at the size and locations of these closures it's clear there is more to them than meets the eye.

Please if you find out anymore info let me know!

Fortunately, fish is only something I do between hunting seasons as my passion is waterfowl(ducks and geese) The majority of duck and goose populations fluorish, not because of closures but becasue of great management by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and hunters like myself who contribute to Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl and Delta Waterfowl.

Management not closures is the answer, especially with the state of California going broke!

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Fisherman57]

I am posting this for Dick Giuliani...

His letter concerning the MLPA recently appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Please direct any comments or questions regarding the letter to Dick at:
DPGIULIANI@aol.com



Opinion
The Marine Life Protection Act mess



Proposed fishing reserves under the Marine Life Protection Act would be disastrous for California.
By Dick Giuliani
March 25, 2009


I have followed from its inception the ongoing Marine Life Protection Act process that was the subject of a March 20 article by Louis Sahagun. I have heard repeatedly from MLPA advocates that we are amicable groups seeking the same goals of preservation of the resource. Let me assure you all, in no uncertain terms, this is not an amicable process. This is an adversarial process in which we seek to maintain our rights to fish in California waters, while the MLPA backers seek to eliminate as much productive fishing area as they can under the fallacious argument that it would protect the resource. They have also stated that the economic impact of closures is speculative, but I submit the following thoughts.

The state of California has just passed a $100-billion budget that will not be enough to get us through the current economic crisis, yet the MLPA advocates seek to eliminate a multibillion-dollar industry with callous disregard for the impact on tax revenues derived from all sources related to the fishing industry. Rentals and sales of boats, trailers, equipment, fishing tackle and fuel, as well as boat maintenance, berthing and launch fees, all generate tax revenue for the state of California. The decline in business revenue and the resulting loss of jobs would be devastating at a time when the state unemployment rate is above 10%. Last year at least six tackle stores either went bankrupt or had to close their doors. Considering the current economic climate, we cannot afford the loss of jobs or the tremendous loss of state tax revenue resulting from fishing closures. We all surely understand that the state of California cannot and will not abide the loss of tax revenue from the sources listed above. All taxpayers, not just those who enjoy outdoor sports and entertainment, would have to pay more to replace the revenue lost as a result of the MLPA closures.

While the state of California would lose millions from the closures, UC Santa Barbara and others would no doubt receive millions in federal or state grants to continue studying this issue. Advocates of the closures have stated there would be no financial problems caused by carrying out the marine reserve plan, as their groups have private sources of funding. (The agenda and goal of the sources of this private funding are certainly suspect.) The initial 1999 estimate for scientific monitoring, public outreach and enforcement was $250,000 annually. That figure is now expected to approach $35 million per year, and many believe this estimate may be far short of the actual funds needed. We can also be assured that these costs will increase dramatically, as they do for all government programs. In addition, this figure may only apply to the closures along the North and Central coasts. These financial projections are now correctly being challenged by state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter).

My friends, we have reached an impasse, and if we are to arrest this draconian process of massive closures, we must seek alternatives to this process as currently conducted. Another thing to consider is that, to my knowledge, no closures in the past have ever been reversed. I believe only the Legislature can curtail this agenda, and it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to admonish our lawmakers to, if not eliminate the MLPA, at least postpone the implementation until such time as the state's fiscal situation improves.

Dick Giuliani is a retiree and recreational fisherman from Eagle Rock who works part-time in a tackle shop.



----------------------------------------------------------------




State Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez To Investigate MLPA Funding
By Ed Zieralski
March 29, 2009, 12:43 p.m.


It's just a guess, but Resources Secretary Michael Chrisman and Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton soon may be sweating in their seats while being grilled by state senators over Sutton's alleged conflicts of interest and the funding of the Marine Life Protection Act.

Sen. Dean Florez, a Democrat from Shafter, is a powerful man, and it's not nice to try and dupe powerful men.
Florez is the state Senate Majority Leader and also recently was named the Democratic caucus chairman of the new budget oversight committee. Considering the state's dire financial situation, that is one very important job that Sen. Florez has taken. He'll be in charge of reaching into the state's wallet for funds, and he's going to want to know what is worthwhile and what isn't. And right now he's asking probing questions about the Marine Life Protection Act that calls for a statewide network of marine protected areas and no fishing zones off California .

Florez joined other state senators such as Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) and Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) in the search for answers about the MLPA process and its funding. California Fish and Game Commissioner Dan Richards of Upland initiated the questions months ago when he asked the Department of Fish and Game to provide a detailed analysis of the costs of potential fishing closures off the coast of California .
Commissioner Richards now has been joined by these key state senators who want to know how this fisheries Act, which was passed in 1999, went from potentially costing the state $250,000 a year to a projected cost of $30 million to $40 million a year once all the marine protected areas are in place. Thus far, closures are in place off the Central Coast , and the environmental impact report for the North Central Coast was released this week by the Department of Fish and Game. The Fish and Game Commission will vote on those closures later in the year.

Florez' questions surfaced in a big way Saturday night at a Coastside Fishing Club fundraiser in San Rafael . Florez' topic was, according to sources there: "The runaway cost of the MLPA and the special interests running the process."
Florez told the recreational anglers he will call a hearing to look deeply into MLPA process to see why the projected costs went from $250,000 a year to an estimated $35 million per year to run. He told the anglers he has the blessing of Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D – Sacramento ) to go forward with the investigation. Florez will call Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman before the Committee and ask him about MLPA funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest.

Florez told the group he wants to know why Commissioner Michael Sutton failed to list his income from the Monterey Bay Aquarium on state Form 700 during the Commission vetting process.
Florez specifically said he wants to find out if Sutton, who is an officer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, has conflicts of interest regarding the Marine Life Protection Act. Sutton once was an officer in the Packard Foundation, and the Packard Foundation, through the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, is funding the MLPA process. Thus far, the RLFF has poured over $18 million into the MLPA process to keep it going at a time when state funds are shrinking. The Packard Foundation also gave over $123 million over three years to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where Sutton works.

Sources close to the MLPA process say Chrisman, Sutton and MLPA Initiative staff, particularly executive director Ken Wiseman, are growing increasingly nervous about questions about Sutton's conflicts of interest and the funding of the process.

Sources say Wiseman has resorted to calling key members of the South Coast Stakeholders Group, which is in the process of forming fishing closures off Southern California , and has asked that they tone down their criticism of the funding and the process.

Chrisman and Sutton have both gone on record saying it's not important that the money isn't there to fund the MLPA. Sutton was quoted saying if the Fish and Game Commission waited for money from the Legislature, no fish and game regulations would ever pass.

Meantime, the state is in the throes of deep budget cuts, mandatory furlough days for state employees. It faces a $42 billion deficit that could grow to $50, depending on the outcome of voter propositions set for May.

Sources indicate the Department of Fish and Game has been ordered to complete detailed reports about what has been spent on the MLPA process, what is being spent now and what will it cost to implement all the fishing closures and marine protected areas once this process is complete.

The DFG reported back to the Commission at Commissioner Dan Richards' request earlier on the estimated costs of the entire MLPA, and that's how the figure of $30 million to $40 million was reached. That money would cover the necessary scientific monitoring, law enforcement and public outreach.

All this for a DFG that recently had to stock sub-catchable trout, some with parr markings, in Southern California and Eastern Sierra waters because it couldn't afford trout food at its hatcheries.

[uscjeffer]

Was sent this...need a little more help....

To Everyone Concerned With The Threat of MPAs

Friendly State Senators (Senators Florez, Ducheny and Hollingsworth) share our concerns and are interested in pursuing a Legislative review of the MLPA process and the creation of MPAs. To do so they need the support and permission of the leader in the Senate, President proTem Steinberg. MPA advocates are pressing him to stop any investigation. It is critical that everyone contact Senator Steinberg with the following message: CALL his office and FAX it to his office also (see below for numbers).


April 1, 2009

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg

President Pro Tempore

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA 95814



Dear Senator Steinberg:



The Marine Life Protection Act process requires oversight by the Legislature to ensure compliance with the law. I urge the Senate to exercise its oversight authority to investigate the numerous conflicts-of-interest in the MLPA process; the lack of funding to adequately carry out the program; and the inequitable single focus on fishing to fix the ocean. Further, I urge the Senate to investigate the cost of implementing the MLPA in light of California’s unprecedented budget shortfall. Without funding for science, monitoring and enforcement, huge sections of the ocean will be closed to fishing forever. This will unnecessarily impact the economy of coastal businesses and seafood consumers at the worst possible time in this terrible recession.

Thank you for considering my views.

Name

Address

City, CA zip

Phone number



Please call Senator Steinberg's office with this message and also print it out and Fax it today! His numbers are:

Phone – 916-651-4006

FAX - 916-323-2263

THIS IS IMPORTANT!

[bones]

Thanks Dana.....Wow !!!! What a great read!
If that doesn't get folks wound up and willing to be proactive....Nothing will !!!!!

[bones]

Was sent this...need a little more help....

To Everyone Concerned With The Threat of MPAs

Friendly State Senators (Senators Florez, Ducheny and Hollingsworth) share our concerns and are interested in pursuing a Legislative review of the MLPA process and the creation of MPAs. To do so they need the support and permission of the leader in the Senate, President proTem Steinberg. MPA advocates are pressing him to stop any investigation. It is critical that everyone contact Senator Steinberg with the following message: CALL his office and FAX it to his office also (see below for numbers).


April 1, 2009

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg

President Pro Tempore

State Capitol, Room 205

Sacramento, CA 95814



Dear Senator Steinberg:



The Marine Life Protection Act process requires oversight by the Legislature to ensure compliance with the law. I urge the Senate to exercise its oversight authority to investigate the numerous conflicts-of-interest in the MLPA process; the lack of funding to adequately carry out the program; and the inequitable single focus on fishing to fix the ocean. Further, I urge the Senate to investigate the cost of implementing the MLPA in light of California’s unprecedented budget shortfall. Without funding for science, monitoring and enforcement, huge sections of the ocean will be closed to fishing forever. This will unnecessarily impact the economy of coastal businesses and seafood consumers at the worst possible time in this terrible recession.

Thank you for considering my views.

Name

Address

City, CA zip

Phone number



Please call Senator Steinberg's office with this message and also print it out and Fax it today! His numbers are:

Phone – 916-651-4006

FAX - 916-323-2263

THIS IS IMPORTANT!

Thanks USCJEFFER

[bones]

Might as well add this here......

A websight to keep everyone informed also...

http://www.yesfishing.org/

[lurk 182]

ah ha. now things are starting to make some sense. business as usual in sacramento. Packard foundation giving $123 million to the aquarium over three years, pretty generous. i'm guessing the aquarium will be heavily involved in (and compensated for) the "scientific monitoring" that will be required from now on. shocking that he forgot to mention this potential conflict.