Nor Cal MPA
 

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...4b3bc01aa.html

By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN dbrennan@nctimes.com | Posted: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:00 pm

A San Diego Superior Court judge has rejected a challenge to recently established Marine Protected Areas, upholding the network of conservation areas along the Northern California coast.
The decision, announced Monday by Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager, overruled complaints by a coalition of sportfishing groups that the California Fish and Game Commission failed to follow state law when it created the Marine Protected Areas in Northern California.
While the decision doesn't address similar, anticipated challenges to marine areas in Southern California, conservation groups said it sets a precedent for those complaints.
"We expect that this case will resolve most of the claims in the South Coast," said Karen Garrison, co-director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's ocean program. "This decision upholds California's landmark program to restore its oceans to sustainable abundance."
The judge's decision Monday dismissed fishing groups' complaints that the commission lacked the authority to designate the protected areas in Northern California, or that it required a coastal act permit to do so.
"We're naturally disappointed," said Bob Fletcher, retired president of the Sportfishing Association of California, and a petitioner on the case. "We felt that our arguments are very much on point, and we still believe the commission did not have statutory authority to take the action it took."
Fletcher said fishing groups are reviewing their options for appeal, and considering how the decision will affect plans to challenge marine areas in Southern California.
Last December, the commission approved a plan to replenish failing fisheries by setting aside 16.5 percent of Southern California's offshore habitat, more than doubling existing protected areas. The protected areas, which would limit fishing and other activities, were slated to take effect Oct. 1.
In September, however, the state Office of Administrative Law disapproved the regulation creating the areas, saying the commission failed to follow procedures for creating the plan. It directed the commission to correct the errors, re-open public notice and submit the revised plan. That process will delay the opening date for the reserves to Jan. 1, said Adrianna Shea, deputy executive director to the commission.
Fishing groups had planned to challenge the South Coast plan when it is finalized, using the complaint against the Northern California marine areas to make its case. Fletcher said many of the allegations made in the Northern California case are the same ones the fishing groups planned to raise against the South Coast marine preserves.
"That has hurt our case on the south coast," Fletcher said of Monday's court decision.
However, Fletcher said, the fishing groups plan to raise separate allegations that the commission violated the California Environmental Quality Act in creating the South Coast reserves, though he said that lawsuit probably would be a couple years out.
"We have raised 14 different instances where they have failed to comply with the CEQA," he said.


Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...#ixzz1bBwkbkQv

Yo Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager:

:reddy:

Fuck the MPA

X2 FUCK THE MPA

I cannot tell you how sick to my stomach that makes me.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I am confused? Are all these people vegetarians?

I feel even worse about the human race today?

can I get a cattle call

SAME HERE. Everyday I feel that my voice in California is heard less and less. We all know these clowns WILL NOT STOP HERE. Their goal is to eradicate us completely. Unfortunately, I fear the worst is yet to come in this state.:vollkommenauf:

I do not have any facts to back up this theory but as it is in most cases where the absurd triumphs over the reasonable or logical, it usually comes down to money.

I suggest that someone should try to follow the money as it relates to this issue. I bet that if this is done, the investigators will find a solid financial link between the folks who support the MLPA and the judge who has issued this ruling. Even judges need cash to run for re-election.

Bob

.....Click...Boom...>>>> MLPA....

In this day and age it ALWAYS come down to money.
-So don't give them anymore.

Don't buy a Kalifornia Fishing License.
-You're only going to fish Mexico anyway. Most sport fishing boats will have to adjust to the closures - and Kayak fishing trips to Baja are nothing new for some of us.
-Sharpen up your long range skills. If necessary a 1 Day License, or Very Short Term License would suffice.

This link shows exactly how much revenue is generated by fishing license sales for the last 10 years.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdff...sales_10yr.pdf

Cut their balls off.

It used to be "going to hell in a hand basket" :(

Phook them
 

I will be fishing wherever I want, new MPA's or not.

And if they decide to write me a ticket, so be it. Time to challenge the ruling in court based on the right to fish.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

AMEN BROTHA!:reel:

Did the NorCal lawsuit not have the Brown Act/Open Meeting law violation claims? Was it really only the 2 issues mentioned in the "article?"

And by the way, it by no means sets any kind of precedent. They can submit the ruling for consideration in the other lawsuits, but the judge is not bound to follow it or even agree.

^No, the lawsuit did not cover the Brown Act. The suit argued the Fish and Game Commission exceded its authority on a number of procedural grounds. Here's my story on the issue:

From http://www.wonews.com/blog.aspx?ID=1501

Let me reiterate fuck the map, the MPLA and die hippie die

Amen!.....fuck them and their "Predetermined outcome....." And their we know whats good for you, you Neanderthal attitude". We'll all find a way!