The latest MLPA Betrayal

[dsafety]

This article was copied from the Fish Rap website. Many of us had hopes that the DFG was not as corrupt as the BRTF but it appears that our hopes were not realized. How can a public agency like the DFG get away with this kind of crap. Their behavior is especially mystifying given the likely funding problems that adopting the IPA will bring.

If anyone has a reasonable explanation to this, I am all ears.

Bob

Guest Commentary: Fish and Game Commission chooses Blue Ribbon Task Force fishing closure proposal, ignores citizen stakeholder groups’ input.

By: Steve Fukuto President, United Anglers of Southern California | 3/18/2010 2:24 PM

The most recent development toward implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) South Coast Study Region has Southern California anglers justifiably concerned. In a 3-to-2 vote on March 3, the California Fish and Game Commission declared that the only proposal it would consider for the South Coast Study Region was the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) put together by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF). The five–member BRTF is the key decision-making group in the MLPA process. The commission’s action effectively terminates consideration of the three proposals created by the citizens — the Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) — selected by the BRTF jointly between the BRTF chair and director of the California Department of Fish and Game to participate in the process. This includes Proposal 2, which was created with cross-interest participation and supported by the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO), United Anglers of Southern California, and the recreational fishing and boating community in Southern California. Passed into law by California legislators in 1999, the MLPA directs the state to create and manage a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) along the California coastline. What this has meant, in practical terms, has been the closing of state ocean waters to commercial and recreational fishing. The motion made by Commissioner Michael Sutton allows only the IPA to go through the full next steps of the process. These steps include going through a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and creating proposed regulations, including the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) that documents the economic effects of the IPA. The three Regional Stakeholder Groups’ proposals will only be evaluated for CEQA. Therefore, there would be insufficient information to incorporate any options based on the stakeholders’ proposals (including Proposal 2) into the final network of MPAs. Bob Fletcher, senior advisor for the Sportfishing Association of California (SAC), a Partnership for Sustainable Oceans member and also a member of the South Coast Regional Stakeholders Group, commented, “To single out the BRTF’s proposal and not give the stakeholder proposals an opportunity for review is both an outrage and a decision with consequences we will all regret. This decision demonstrates a blatant disregard for promises and commitments for a fair and open process, and is yet another biased decision that has plagued this process.” This latest decision is a slap in the face to cross-interest stakeholder groups who spent countless hours hammering out proposals to meet the law’s conservation goals for Southern California waters. These proposals represented by maps outlining varying areas along the coast and islands that would be restricted or closed to fishing outright. All these plans stood to affect impact anglers to varying degrees, with no-take reserves in key fishing areas such as like the La Jolla Kelp, Laguna Beach, Point Vincente, Point Dume and Santa Catalina Island. Proposal 2 was developed with cooperation not only from the recreational and commercial fishing communities, but also conservation groups, city and county governments, harbor departments, water sanitation districts and marina operators. According to its diverse supporters, it is based on the science guidelines prescribed in this process and offers high conservation measures utilizing access limitations, gear restrictions, and take regulations. More importantly, Proposal 2 minimizes negative economic impacts, while still maintaining it high conservation values.. The commission’s latest action is in direct contradiction to previous statements made by commission members and the process employed in the North Central Coast. To not evaluate all four alternatives disenfranchises the regional stakeholders and compounds the problems and suspicions of this flawed process. Patty Doerr, Ocean Resource Policy Director for the American Sportfishing Association and , a Partnership for Sustainable Oceans O member, echoed Fletcher’’s remarks, saying, ”If the Department of Fish and Game does not intend to prepare proposed regulations for each of the alternatives for Fish and Game Commission consideration, then, in effect, a ’final decision’ has already been made — , which is contrary to the Commission’s own agenda and a betrayal to everyone involved in this process. This is just another example of the ever-changing rules.” Doerr continued. The recent vote has left angling organizations and the sportfishing industry with a familiar feeling of betrayal and futility regarding the whole process. Time and again, MLPA leadership has promised an “open and transparent” process. All actions and decisions were supposed to be determined in full view. The BRTF further stated it would conduct this process under the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Act, a rule that dictates noticing and action of meetings. Instead, the BRTF made key decisions in private meetings, away from public scrutiny and participation. And the Fish and Game Commission refused to hold the BRTF accountable for these actions, which makes it just as culpable. This breach of the public trust puts the entire process under a cloud of suspicion. Those of us old enough to remember the old Peanuts cartoons can relate to the running gag where Lucy convinces Charlie Brown to kick the football, only to pull it away at the last minute. After convincing us that we could trust them —— and they were really going to work with the public this time —— the commissioners, who voted in favor of this motion, have once again shown their true colors. Southern California anglers can now only hope to achieve minor modifications to the BRTF plan, in hopes of lessening the blow a little. That, and prepare for what seems an inevitable challenge to this flawed process — in the courts. Anglers Fisherman are encouraged to visit keepamericafishing.org or Southern California-based unitedanglers.com to stay abreast of the latest developments.>>