Nor Cal MPA

[wade]

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

[bellcon]

Yo Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager:

[Matt]

Fuck the MPA

[RK]

Originally Posted by Matt

Fuck the MPA

X2 FUCK THE MPA

[GregAndrew]

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

[sharonkayak]

I am confused? Are all these people vegetarians?

I feel even worse about the human race today?

can I get a cattle call

[blitzburgh]

Originally Posted by GregAndrew

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

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.

[Tman]

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.

[mtnbykr2]

Originally Posted by Tman

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!

[jbm]

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.

[PAL]

^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:

Breaking news!: Judge delivers blow to lawsuit

MLPA Challenge Suffers Court Setback

BY PAUL LEBOWITZ
WON Staff Writer

SAN DIEGO — On Monday, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager dealt the legal challenge against the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act a sharp blow.

Confirming his tentative order of Oct. 6, Prager rejected arguments brought by angler advocates United Anglers of California, Coastside Fishing Club and Robert C. Fletcher that the Fish and Game Commission exceeded its statutory authority when it approved new marine protected areas in Northern California.

Fletcher, past president of the Sportfishing Association of California, was undaunted by the setback. “As we all are, I’m very disappointed the judge didn’t appear to understand the arguments we made. We still stand by those arguments,” he said. Fletcher further told the Union-Tribune’s Mike Lee that an appeal is under consideration. “We think our case was very solid,” he added.

The ruling did not directly affect planned South Coast MLPA closures, now set for a January 1, 2012 implementation. The UASC lawsuit originally targeted both the northern California and south coast regions, but the lawsuit was split as the south coast start date continually slipped, making the legal challenge premature.

It was the first court setback for the effort to hold the state accountable for a marine reserve planning process that singles out fishermen but does nothing to halt damage to the marine environment caused by sewer outfalls and industrial uses. Previously, Fletcher decisively prevailed when he sued for access to meeting agendas, emails and other records generated during the MLPA planning process. The so-called Blue Ribbon Task Force had argued they were immune to laws designed to protect the public from secretive, back-room dealings. The court found otherwise, compelling the BRTF to release communications that demonstrate a pervasive pattern of closed-door wheeling and dealing – some would say at the behest of the MLPA’s private funders, the Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation.

"From the outset, it was clear that the MLPA process was set up to reach a predetermined outcome under the fiction of an allegedly open and transparent process," Fletcher previously told WON.

Anglers continue to mobilize resources for the legal battle. In response to a $50,000 challenge grant from the American Sportfishing Association, Okuma, Coastside members and sportfishing pioneer Ingrid Poole each pledged $10,000 to the Ocean Access Protection Fund, and Fletcher poured in another $1,000.

"We're in this fight to the end. We're working hard on behalf of recreational and commercial fishermen who don't agree with the MLPA and the decisions of the Fish and Game Commission. We'd like all the help we can get to continue the battle," Fletcher said.

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

[Matt]

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