View Full Version : Fishermen - What you don't know can hurt you.

10-29-2010, 10:41 AM
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 and spread the word.

11-01-2010, 09:52 AM
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". If this doesn't raise a brow you haven't done your homework. With that said, to witness the craftiness of the EEG's in person has put a thorn under my nail.

11-04-2010, 01:13 PM
A little late, but for your info:


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.

11-25-2010, 01:02 PM
Well prop. 21 was downed thanks to small miracles , the people have spoken and voted .
Speaking of how confusing this proposition was luckily I've had some conversations about it with some friends and family members that were thinking it was a great idea to help the parks and such and to vote yes on 21 .
After explaining what was really behind it and telling them to really study it before voting they were shocked how clever these ppl are . LMAO paying them for not allowing me to fish the spots i want to fish jees .
I am all for conservation but the recreational fisherman is not the problem here and everyone knows this .

02-25-2011, 02:11 PM
i greew up in da oc if your so god daaaaaaaaaamn politcal vots for a new goddddddddd damnnnnnnnnnnn president, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! have a nice life in ever smoggier land by the way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!