|
10-18-2011, 07:41 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 1,214
|
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
__________________
|
10-18-2011, 08:05 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Pedro
Posts: 999
|
Yo Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager:
__________________
|
10-18-2011, 08:12 PM | #3 |
Support your local pangas
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lj
Posts: 976
|
Fuck the MPA
__________________
Thanks Matt F. |
10-18-2011, 08:18 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 736
|
|
10-18-2011, 09:12 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,384
|
I cannot tell you how sick to my stomach that makes me.
|
10-18-2011, 09:25 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 217
|
I am confused? Are all these people vegetarians? I feel even worse about the human race today? can I get a cattle call |
10-18-2011, 09:48 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Menifee
Posts: 2,509
|
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.
__________________
”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” ~Thomas Jefferson.........maybe |
10-19-2011, 08:22 AM | #8 |
BRTF...bought & paid...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,247
|
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.
__________________
Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher |
10-19-2011, 08:45 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: newbury park ca
Posts: 2,323
|
Quote:
|
|
10-19-2011, 08:52 AM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Escondido<->Carlsbad
Posts: 81
|
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. |
10-19-2011, 09:02 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 754
|
^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:
Quote:
|
|
10-20-2011, 02:21 PM | #12 |
Support your local pangas
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lj
Posts: 976
|
Let me reiterate fuck the map, the MPLA and die hippie die
__________________
Thanks Matt F. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|