If you like the MLPA you will love Prop 21 - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Tman · 11-01-2010, 09:39 PM

Rec'd this email from Keep America Fishing, just a snippet...

While not spelled out in the wording of Prop. 21, even members of the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) admit that some Prop. 21 money would be used to help fund the yearly cost of MPAs. During the October 20-21 FGC meeting, Commissioner Mike Sutton commented that “all will be well with the environmental world once Proposition 21 passes and there’s plenty of money for the MLPA.”

Care to read the rest here it is...

If You Like the MLPA, You Will Love Proposition 21

Educate yourself on the California State Parks Initiative before casting your vote on November 2

Proposition 21, referred to as the “States Parks Act” on the November 2 ballot, proposes to increase vehicle license fees by $18 per year to raise approximately $500 million for a dedicated fund for the state’s 278 parks.

Many recreational anglers are ardent conservationists who value California’s state parks and want to see them well funded, well managed and well cared for. At first glance, it is easy to see why many might want to approve Prop. 21, but as an angler, it is important to take a deeper look into the implications of the State Park Act.

What many people do not know is that some of the money raised through the increased vehicle fees could end up funding the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which requires the formation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in California's coastal waters, including marine reserves which prohibit recreational fishing. The MLPA implementation process has been largely criticized by anglers, divers and others for its lack of true science and covert decision making.

The MPAs currently proposed under the MLPA would close or restrict recreational fishing access in prime locations along the entire coast of the state. For example, between Point Conception and the Mexican border, 16.6 percent of southern California’s coastal and island waters may be closed to any consumptive activity, including recreational fishing. Your own money could be used to keep you out of your favorite fishing spots!

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 (FGC) admit that some Prop. 21 money would be used to help fund the yearly cost of MPAs. During the October 20-21 FGC meeting, Commissioner Mike Sutton commented that “all will be well with the environmental world once Proposition 21 passes and there’s plenty of money for the MLPA.”

The sportfishing community is in favor of marine conservation based on sound science and proven fisheries management methods. What the sportfishing community does oppose is the closure of popular fishing grounds based on political agendas and rushed science, especially when it is funded by our own tax dollars.

Whether to vote for or against Proposition 21 is a decision that all Californians – and all outdoorsmen and women – must make for themselves. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans requests that you review the contents of the measure carefully and make your decision with all of the facts.

Tman · 11-01-2010, 10:12 PM

Just to touch on this, realize that if you don't charge admission, or any park fees to CA residents, what do you think will happen?

I can already visualize the clusterphook...then they will "realize" that it isn't working, and go back to charging fees with the damage being done.
Meanwhile, they have the funding to enforce MPA's, which they were looking for all along.

This chit is too easy...the only clear and transparent process is of the different ways they are trying to slip all this shit by us...

SNAFU

Prop 21 ------------>

Matt · 11-01-2010, 10:46 PM

Mmmmmmm.... How to say this in the correct words.....
FUCK THE MLPA!!!

Billy V · 11-01-2010, 10:52 PM

VOTE NO on PROP 21

j mo · 11-02-2010, 06:40 AM

21 is a joke. They(the parks) should be privatized anyway. The gov can continue to own the land but day to day management should be farmed out.

http://parkprivatization.com/

mtnbykr2 · 11-02-2010, 11:35 AM

most, if not all propositions are misleading, or an out and out lie, or just another way to bleed us dry, like 21,
even if you get all the details and read the fine print the end result has nothing to do with the tax payers well being in mind, but when they try and mess with one of our God given rights, not to mention alot of peoples
livelyhoods, that's just wrong in alot of ways...the way they have gone about this whole thing is wrong, now they want us to help pay for it,,,,not....get out there and vote. Vote all the mfers that stand for it out, vote all the livins out...

I edited out my real words for moral reasons...lol

11-01-2010, 09:39 PM	#1
Tman BRTF...bought & paid... Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,247	If you like the MLPA you will love Prop 21 Rec'd this email from Keep America Fishing, just a snippet... While not spelled out in the wording of Prop. 21, even members of the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) admit that some Prop. 21 money would be used to help fund the yearly cost of MPAs. During the October 20-21 FGC meeting, Commissioner Mike Sutton commented that “all will be well with the environmental world once Proposition 21 passes and there’s plenty of money for the MLPA.” Care to read the rest here it is... If You Like the MLPA, You Will Love Proposition 21 Educate yourself on the California State Parks Initiative before casting your vote on November 2 Proposition 21, referred to as the “States Parks Act” on the November 2 ballot, proposes to increase vehicle license fees by $18 per year to raise approximately $500 million for a dedicated fund for the state’s 278 parks. Many recreational anglers are ardent conservationists who value California’s state parks and want to see them well funded, well managed and well cared for. At first glance, it is easy to see why many might want to approve Prop. 21, but as an angler, it is important to take a deeper look into the implications of the State Park Act. What many people do not know is that some of the money raised through the increased vehicle fees could end up funding the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which requires the formation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in California's coastal waters, including marine reserves which prohibit recreational fishing. The MLPA implementation process has been largely criticized by anglers, divers and others for its lack of true science and covert decision making. The MPAs currently proposed under the MLPA would close or restrict recreational fishing access in prime locations along the entire coast of the state. For example, between Point Conception and the Mexican border, 16.6 percent of southern California’s coastal and island waters may be closed to any consumptive activity, including recreational fishing. Your own money could be used to keep you out of your favorite fishing spots! 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 (FGC) admit that some Prop. 21 money would be used to help fund the yearly cost of MPAs. During the October 20-21 FGC meeting, Commissioner Mike Sutton commented that “all will be well with the environmental world once Proposition 21 passes and there’s plenty of money for the MLPA.” The sportfishing community is in favor of marine conservation based on sound science and proven fisheries management methods. What the sportfishing community does oppose is the closure of popular fishing grounds based on political agendas and rushed science, especially when it is funded by our own tax dollars. Whether to vote for or against Proposition 21 is a decision that all Californians – and all outdoorsmen and women – must make for themselves. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans requests that you review the contents of the measure carefully and make your decision with all of the facts. __________________ Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher Last edited by Tman; 11-01-2010 at 09:52 PM.

11-01-2010, 10:12 PM	#2
Tman BRTF...bought & paid... Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,247	Just to touch on this, realize that if you don't charge admission, or any park fees to CA residents, what do you think will happen? I can already visualize the clusterphook...then they will "realize" that it isn't working, and go back to charging fees with the damage being done. Meanwhile, they have the funding to enforce MPA's, which they were looking for all along. This chit is too easy...the only clear and transparent process is of the different ways they are trying to slip all this shit by us... SNAFU Prop 21 ------------> __________________ Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher

11-01-2010, 10:46 PM	#3
Matt Support your local pangas Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lj Posts: 976	Mmmmmmm.... How to say this in the correct words..... FUCK THE MLPA!!! __________________ Thanks Matt F.

11-01-2010, 10:52 PM	#4
Billy V Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bay Ho Posts: 1,382	VOTE NO on PROP 21 __________________

11-02-2010, 06:40 AM	#5
j mo Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Encinitas Posts: 600	21 is a joke. They(the parks) should be privatized anyway. The gov can continue to own the land but day to day management should be farmed out. http://parkprivatization.com/

11-02-2010, 11:35 AM	#6
mtnbykr2 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: newbury park ca Posts: 2,323	most, if not all propositions are misleading, or an out and out lie, or just another way to bleed us dry, like 21, even if you get all the details and read the fine print the end result has nothing to do with the tax payers well being in mind, but when they try and mess with one of our God given rights, not to mention alot of peoples livelyhoods, that's just wrong in alot of ways...the way they have gone about this whole thing is wrong, now they want us to help pay for it,,,,not....get out there and vote. Vote all the mfers that stand for it out, vote all the livins out... I edited out my real words for moral reasons...lol