A Wolf in Sheep clothing.

[walrus]

Warn everyone you know.

Prop 21, if passed, provides the funding for MPLA closures.

Don't take my word for it read the details in the State of California voters guide.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/21/
5089. For the purposes of this chapter, eligible expenditures for wildlife conservation include direct expenditures and grants for operation, management, development, restoration, maintenance, law enforcement and public safety, interpretation, costs to provide appropriate public access, and other costs necessary for the protection and management of natural resources and wildlife, including scientific monitoring and analysis required for adaptive management.fficeffice" />>>

Once again give a prop a popular title and hide unpopular agenda items within it. Right now the MPLA closures have no funding if passed.

[Willy]

Great heads up!

It's true, I just picked up the General Election Guide (the newsprint one that comes in the mail) and there it is, plain as day under Prop 21...Page26 in my guide, there are two little paragraphs describing a 4% allocation of funds to the 'Ocean Protection Council", 7% to DFG for "Management of Ecological Reserves" among other allocations.

This election cycle is important on so many levels; local, State and Fed.

To avoid politics on the fishing board, I'll just say READ THE FINE PRINT!!!

Go get 'em,

Willy

[dsafety]

This is a tough one. Before the funding set-asides were pointed out, I thought that this proposition was s rare example of something reasonable being put forward as a proposition. Now I am not so sure.

According to the voter's guide, the DFG would get about $35 million of the estimated $500 million the fees would generate. This is just about what some estimate the DFG will need to enforce the MLPA closures.

What is not clear to me is if this money will be additional funding for the DFG or replacement of other funding which will be withdrawn by the State. I will try to find out.

The fees will also provide about $20 million to the Ocean Protection Council. I have never heard of this organization. Are they friends or foes?

In 2009 the DFG had a total budget of about $462 million. They used about $68 million of that for law enforcement. Another 51MM went to something called "Management of Lands and Facilities". $72MM went to "Hunting & Fishing Public Use" I am not sure what the non-law enforcement activities are but my guess is that either or both of these could reach out and get involved with MLPA enforcement.

We have been told that the DFG does not have enough funding today to properly enforce the laws which currently exist. A $35MM shot in the arm would certainly enhance their enforcement capabilities, if, (and this is a big if), this funding was additional funding and that it was applied to their enforcement efforts. If funding reductions from other sources produce no net gain, than I don't see how the passage of this proposition can work against our cause. It is also possible that the DFG could use any additional funding for other activities not related to enforcement.

Speaking just for myself, I have to say that I do not yet know enough about this subject to form an opinion on whether Prop 21 is a good or bad thing. I will try to find out more and post anything interesting that I find.

Thanks Walrus for pointing this stuff out.

Bob

[dsafety]

I am surprised that this thread has not gotten much play. The question and more importantly the answer could be very important to us.

I think I may have some answers... maybe.

First let me restate the question. Will the funding that Prop 21 provides to the DFG, (if it passes), enable them to fund enforcement of future MLPA closures?

I asked several DFG guys at the meeting this question. No one even knew that Prop 21 included funding for their agency. That response deserves a big WOW!, but I suspect that only a fraction of our citizens have taken the time to read the voter's guide. I am sure that the DFG wardens are no different than the rest of us.

I made friends with the senior DFG guy, Mike, who was at the meeting with about a dozen of his guys. When I asked him this question he told me that the Chief of the DFG would be attending this meeting and that he would ask her. Near the end of the meeting Mike searched me out and told me that he had an answer... sort of.

The Chief was, in fact, aware of the potential future funding. She said that as things stand now, much of the new funding will be offset by reductions in agency funding from the state's general fund. The agency is lobbying to keep some of the new funding that will be used to pay off debts owed to local governments from which they have borrowed money to stay afloat recently.

I read this to mean that there will be little or no new funding for the DFG in the immediate future. Mike did say that once they paid off their loans, the new funding would be used to enhance their agency's operations but not specifically for ocean enforcement since that is only a small part of their mission.

I am not sure if anything I was told is true or if things will play out as Mike told me but it does give us some insight into what may happen.

On a related subject, I spent quite a bit of time talking to the DFG guys at this meeting. They are all, without exception, smart and reasonable people. They have a job to do and do not think that the MLPA closures will be very useful in the long run. These guys deserve our respect and support.

Bob

[Billy V]

Bob,

This was posted on Bloody Decks MLPA link. Its a small excerpt form the post.
-------------------------------------------

Sutton believes the total cost of the entire MLPA network of closures will come in around $11 million a year for enforcement, public outreach and monitoring. He believes that because the Blue Ribbon Task Force told him so.

Richards said the cost is $40 million a year because the Department of Fish and Game told him and the other commissioners so.

Sutton calls it a “$40 million myth.”

Sutton said Wednesday that all will be well with the environmental world once Proposition 21 passes and there’s plenty of money for the MLPA.

For those of us who wondered why we should vote yes or no on Proposition 21, an $18 car tax to fund state parks, Sutton gave many of us another reason not to do vote for it.

According to the breakdown of the “allocation” of $500 million raised yearly from the $18 car tax Californians will have to pay on each vehicle we own, approximately $35 million a year will go to the DFG for management and operation of lands. Another $20 million goes to the Ocean Protection Council, $10 million to state land conservancies and $10 million to the Wildlife Conservation Fund. State parks will get $375 million a year, urban river parkways another $20 million and $25 million to local agencies for “lost fee revenue.”

Notice none of that money is earmarked for the MLPA, but Sutton and his environmental backers know they can poach from one or most of those groups’ share of the tax to pay for the yearly cost of the marine protected areas.

Richards was the only commissioner to refuse to endorse Proposition 21 when the groups backing it presented it to the commission. Even commission president Jim Kellogg, usually an ally of sportsman-conservation groups and common sense, endorsed it.


Richards was asked Wednesday about all the various preservation and conservation groups that since have endorsed the car tax that is all dressed up as a proposition to save state parks.

“It’s just another example of people not paying attention to what’s really going on,” he said.

Richards has been paying attention. He’s truly the only commissioner on California's Fish and Game panel who is in the real world. Kellogg has moments, but Richards is all-in as far as keeping it real.
___________________________________________
Heres a little More...

FYI: The wording within prop 21 which will make it easy to utilize funds for MPA "management." IMO, there is no question that monies generated from this prop will be utilized for MPA's.

(b) Seven percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to the Department of Fish and Game for the management and operation of wildlife refuges, ecological reserves, and other lands owned or managed by the Department of Fish and Game for wildlife conservation.(c) Four percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to the Ocean Protection Council for marine wildlife conservation and the protection of coastal waters, with first priority given to the development, operation, management, and monitoring of marine protected areas.

[bmercury]

I have been skeptical about whether this will "fund" MLPA or not. But now one of the commissioners has said it would? I guess that makes it pretty clear

[walrus]

I have at times been on public committees involved in planning at the state level. On some projects the planning was for thirty years in the future. I know that the one way to absolutely stop planned projects is by preventing funding. This even works when the opponent has more dollars than you to influence the elected officials.

A very effective way to ensure funding for a project is to establish a regulatory board. The members of these boards are appointed by elected officials and the general public has no idea who sits on these boards. Generally all the appointed members are from groups who have special and specific interest in the board’s purpose.

A well know example of this is the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Do you know who is on this board? Do you know the background of the board members? They decide what vehicles can be sold in California. They decide if you can register your vehicle in California, they impose air quality fee’s (smog checks) that funds them forever. NOW, can you guess how they got started? A prop on clean air, everyone wants clean air, who could possibly be against clean air.

We have a chance to STOP THE MPLA. Kill it’s FUNDING.

Prop 21 establishes regulatory boards:
(c) Four percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to the Ocean Protection Council for marine wildlife conservation and the protection of coastal waters, with first priority given to the development, operation, management, and monitoring of marine protected areas.

(d) Two percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to state conservancies for management, operation, and wildlife conservation on state lands that are managed for park and wildlife habitat purposes by those conservancies. A state conservancy may provide grants to a local agency that assists the conservancy in managing state-owned lands under that conservancy’s jurisdiction.


As you can see, this is another CARB targeted at outdoor recreationist posing as a State Park Bail Out. Everybody wants State Parks, right, who could be against a state park. YOU GOT TO READ THE TEXT OF THE BILL IT SAYS:

• 85% of the money raised from the new fee would be spent directly on maintaining and operating state parks.
• The $130 million that the State of California currently spends on state parks would go into the state's general fund.

It doesn’t improve the parks, it allows the current funding to go back to the general fund and creates new REGULATORY BOARDS to restrict the public use of public lands and waterways.


IF YOU COULDN”T MAKE IT TO THE MPLA HEARINGS, but you want to continue fishing.

Talk face to face with your family, friends and neighbors about the hidden agenda in Prop 21. We have history to show what will happen if this passes. Vote NO, our kids should have a right to fish.

The defeat of Prop 21 could be a decisive battle in the war to protect public access to fishing, hunting, hiking and camping on California’s Public lands and waterways. The government can only regulate and restrict freedom if we give them the money. Stop the funding of MPLA.