Yet more MLPA info - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

tylerdurden · 07-01-2009, 08:34 AM

to the guys that showed up last night to comment and talk to people

. Kayak fishermen made up a significant number of the people there. We always need more.

I reached information overload a long time ago with all the different things going on.

Here is some new info for all of us:

MLPA Oversight
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED!
The entire fishing community (recreational and commercial) has been waiting and anticipating for months to see if the CA Legislature was going to assert its rightful role and oversee the Administration and its wealthy private supporters as they adopt Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Or would the Legislature just accept the word of the Administration that the process was based on good science and lots of public input.
The fishing community had high hopes that two prominent legislators (Senators Florez and Ducheny) would help ensure transparency. Even hoping that a special oversight hearing could be held to examine the quality of the science, the economic impacts, and the availability of state funds to actually manage MPAs once they are adopted.
Ducheny and Florez tried their best but ran into a brick wall in Senate President proTempore Steinberg’s office. Language requiring (1) the same financial standards that controls public money be applied to the MLPA private money and (2) a delay in new MPAs until fishery management is fully integrated with previously adopted MPAs was solidly rejected from going into a "budget trailer bill."
Instead, Senator Steinberg flipped the language into a huge victory for anti-fishing folks. His language compliments the Governor on the use of private money and private agreements for creating MPAs and encourages him to do the same for adopting Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) under the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA). It invites RLFF, who has already given nearly $34 million to create MPAs, and others to pony up the millions needed to write and adopt an FMP regulating fishing in areas outside of MPAs. See attached.
Steinberg recognizes that implementing the MLPA and the MLMA are outrageously expensive ($35 million annually for MLPA), but instead of fixing the problem he says go get special interest money to restrict fishing.
In other words, special interest money could be in total control of fishing throughout the state. With no effective Legislative oversight!
Please make some phone calls now:
1^st - Call Senators Florez (916-651-4016) and Ducheny (916-651-4040) and thank them for their efforts regarding MLPA oversight and ask them to continue.
2^nd Call Senator Steinberg (916-651-4006 Capitol or 916-651-1529 District)
Ask: Why is he undermining Legislative oversight of the MLPA? Why he supports placing tens of millions of dollars in unfunded mandates on the DFG? How can he allow costly new programs to start up while cutting critical existing programs?
3^rd Call your local Assemblymember and State Senator and ask their help in getting meaningful oversight and controls on this expensive unfunded MLPA program. You can find you local representatives at www.leginfo.ca.gov Click "Your Legislature" and insert your zip code.
Thank you,
CA Fisheries Coalition

Holy Mackerel · 07-01-2009, 09:01 AM

Thanks Tyler!

The Drive continues! C'mon, it is 1st and 10, new set of downs. Let's get on this.

A few more months, and there will no longer be any MLPA posts on how WE all can act, because the process will be over.

chris

tylerdurden · 07-01-2009, 10:00 AM

Right on Chris. Only a few more months of this then it should all be over and we can return to normal, we hope. I know with multiple MLPA posts every day it seems like we are crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling, or we are crying wolf one to many times. I am trying to avoid that, but every meeting and event and contribution you can make from this point out is critical since the process is fast approaching the end.

When all is said and done, if they close your favorite spot, where ever that maybe, can you look at your self in the mirror and say you did anything to prevent it, all that you could do, or did you do nothing? If I am going down, I am going down swinging.

I know it sucks, I know there is tons of information to try and read and understand, I know it takes time. In a couple months it will all be over and I hope when it is we can say we made a difference with our contributions.

The reason this particular decision is important, if it really is the way I read it, is that the same people paying for the MLPA implementation now could privately fund changes to the existing DFG management of areas not in a reserve. So they could change bag limits, size limits, seasonal restrictions, or implement no take of certain species. I am of course suspicious as this group leans antifishing and I fear they could further reduce our opportunities at the places we have left after the closures. When the regs need changes, I am all for the right changes to protect the resource we have. I just question how impartial this could turn out to be.

Corey · 07-01-2009, 12:22 PM

Thanks for the info, Tyler. Phone calls are easy.

Holy Mackerel · 07-01-2009, 02:39 PM

Guys/Gals!!!

Make the calls, saw some success on Spearboard, we need those phones ringing...

Quote:

Update on my post:
I just received a call from Senator Dave Cox himself and I am impressed. He personally called back within two hours. I wish all our reps were that responsive to the voters.
He was not familiar with the MLPA issue but will follow up and call me back to update me. I told him Steinberg is part of the problem and Ducheny and Florez are trying to assist our cause. It does actually work to call your reps and raise some hell.

Freespool · 07-01-2009, 04:42 PM

I've been hearing so much about the MLPA since moving here a few months ago from Seattle, so I headed down to the meeting last night to get myself informed and file my comments. I spent 2 hours there asking ?'s and voicing my concerns to the folks at most of the "stations". It was pretty interesting. There seemed to be a wide range of opinions amongst the people involved in the process. I wrote 2 pages of comments as an angler and fisheries biologist. Hope it helps.

The jist of it for me was that we really don't want Lapis 1 on the table in future discussions and that Draft External A or B would be the best options. Apparently Draft B probably won't make it because it likely won't meet the MLPA guidelines so Draft A might be the best option.

For anyone that hasn't been to one of the meetings yet or hasn't gotten involved, I really recommend informing yourself and taking part. It seemed to me that all our comments really will make a difference and that we do have some say in the matter. We just have to keep up the pressure and show our numbers. There are a lot of anglers out there and we are a force to be reckoned with if we can join forces and collaborate on this!

Tman · 07-01-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freespool

I've been hearing so much about the MLPA since moving here a few months ago from Seattle, so I headed down to the meeting last night to get myself informed and file my comments. I spent 2 hours there asking ?'s and voicing my concerns to the folks at most of the "stations". It was pretty interesting. There seemed to be a wide range of opinions amongst the people involved in the process. I wrote 2 pages of comments as an angler and fisheries biologist. Hope it helps.

The jist of it for me was that we really don't want Lapis 1 on the table in future discussions and that Draft External A or B would be the best options. Apparently Draft B probably won't make it because it likely won't meet the MLPA guidelines so Draft A might be the best option.

For anyone that hasn't been to one of the meetings yet or hasn't gotten involved, I really recommend informing yourself and taking part. It seemed to me that all our comments really will make a difference and that we do have some say in the matter. We just have to keep up the pressure and show our numbers. There are a lot of anglers out there and we are a force to be reckoned with if we can join forces and collaborate on this!

07-01-2009, 08:34 AM	#1
tylerdurden Bad Clone Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 874	Yet more MLPA info to the guys that showed up last night to comment and talk to people . Kayak fishermen made up a significant number of the people there. We always need more. I reached information overload a long time ago with all the different things going on. Here is some new info for all of us: MLPA Oversight YOUR HELP IS NEEDED! The entire fishing community (recreational and commercial) has been waiting and anticipating for months to see if the CA Legislature was going to assert its rightful role and oversee the Administration and its wealthy private supporters as they adopt Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Or would the Legislature just accept the word of the Administration that the process was based on good science and lots of public input. The fishing community had high hopes that two prominent legislators (Senators Florez and Ducheny) would help ensure transparency. Even hoping that a special oversight hearing could be held to examine the quality of the science, the economic impacts, and the availability of state funds to actually manage MPAs once they are adopted. Ducheny and Florez tried their best but ran into a brick wall in Senate President proTempore Steinberg’s office. Language requiring (1) the same financial standards that controls public money be applied to the MLPA private money and (2) a delay in new MPAs until fishery management is fully integrated with previously adopted MPAs was solidly rejected from going into a "budget trailer bill." Instead, Senator Steinberg flipped the language into a huge victory for anti-fishing folks. His language compliments the Governor on the use of private money and private agreements for creating MPAs and encourages him to do the same for adopting Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) under the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA). It invites RLFF, who has already given nearly $34 million to create MPAs, and others to pony up the millions needed to write and adopt an FMP regulating fishing in areas outside of MPAs. See attached. Steinberg recognizes that implementing the MLPA and the MLMA are outrageously expensive ($35 million annually for MLPA), but instead of fixing the problem he says go get special interest money to restrict fishing. In other words, special interest money could be in total control of fishing throughout the state. With no effective Legislative oversight! *Please make some phone calls now:* 1^st - Call Senators Florez (916-651-4016) and Ducheny (916-651-4040) and thank them for their efforts regarding MLPA oversight and ask them to continue. 2^nd Call Senator Steinberg (916-651-4006 Capitol or 916-651-1529 District) Ask: Why is he undermining Legislative oversight of the MLPA? Why he supports placing tens of millions of dollars in unfunded mandates on the DFG? How can he allow costly new programs to start up while cutting critical existing programs? 3^rd Call your local Assemblymember and State Senator and ask their help in getting meaningful oversight and controls on this expensive unfunded MLPA program. You can find you local representatives at www.leginfo.ca.gov Click "Your Legislature" and insert your zip code. Thank you, CA Fisheries Coalition __________________ MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th.

07-01-2009, 10:00 AM	#3
tylerdurden Bad Clone Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 874	Right on Chris. Only a few more months of this then it should all be over and we can return to normal, we hope. I know with multiple MLPA posts every day it seems like we are crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling, or we are crying wolf one to many times. I am trying to avoid that, but every meeting and event and contribution you can make from this point out is critical since the process is fast approaching the end. When all is said and done, if they close your favorite spot, where ever that maybe, can you look at your self in the mirror and say you did anything to prevent it, all that you could do, or did you do nothing? If I am going down, I am going down swinging. I know it sucks, I know there is tons of information to try and read and understand, I know it takes time. In a couple months it will all be over and I hope when it is we can say we made a difference with our contributions. The reason this particular decision is important, if it really is the way I read it, is that the same people paying for the MLPA implementation now could privately fund changes to the existing DFG management of areas not in a reserve. So they could change bag limits, size limits, seasonal restrictions, or implement no take of certain species. I am of course suspicious as this group leans antifishing and I fear they could further reduce our opportunities at the places we have left after the closures. When the regs need changes, I am all for the right changes to protect the resource we have. I just question how impartial this could turn out to be. __________________ MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th.

07-01-2009, 12:22 PM	#4
Corey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: ...waaaay out there Posts: 794	Thanks for the info, Tyler. Phone calls are easy. __________________

07-01-2009, 09:01 AM	#2
Holy Mackerel Señor member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,627	Thanks Tyler! The Drive continues! C'mon, it is 1st and 10, new set of downs. Let's get on this. A few more months, and there will no longer be any MLPA posts on how WE all can act, because the process will be over. chris

07-01-2009, 04:42 PM	#6
Freespool Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: La Jolla Posts: 42	I've been hearing so much about the MLPA since moving here a few months ago from Seattle, so I headed down to the meeting last night to get myself informed and file my comments. I spent 2 hours there asking ?'s and voicing my concerns to the folks at most of the "stations". It was pretty interesting. There seemed to be a wide range of opinions amongst the people involved in the process. I wrote 2 pages of comments as an angler and fisheries biologist. Hope it helps. The jist of it for me was that we really don't want Lapis 1 on the table in future discussions and that Draft External A or B would be the best options. Apparently Draft B probably won't make it because it likely won't meet the MLPA guidelines so Draft A might be the best option. For anyone that hasn't been to one of the meetings yet or hasn't gotten involved, I really recommend informing yourself and taking part. It seemed to me that all our comments really will make a difference and that we do have some say in the matter. We just have to keep up the pressure and show our numbers. There are a lot of anglers out there and we are a force to be reckoned with if we can join forces and collaborate on this!