2012--Environmentalist suit closes three of California's SMRs to surfing and boating

[zenspearo]

It hasn't happened yet--but it's naive to think that it won't.

This is why the MLPA adaptive management provision, under the influence of special interest groups is very dangerous to all California ocean users and California coastal communities. This is doubly so for SMRs where the DFG is expressly required by the MLPA to regulate (read: prohibit) even non-extractive use if such is necessary to protect habitat. This is, unfortunately, how the current MLPA law is written for State Marine Reserves. And it represents a huge litigation loophole.

At Cape Hatteras, in my old home state of North Carolina, one environmental group with the singular intention of providing at all costs extra environmental protection to birds have literally taken over one of the best surfing, kiteboarding, and fishing areas in North Carolina.

http://nc.audubon.org/issues-action/...-cape-hatteras


I feel for these guys.

http://www.surfingmagazine.com/news/...-first-030509/

http://surfermag.com/features/online...tteras-access/

http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/sp...ave-one_25228/

http://www.savehatteras.com/

http://www.capehatterasanglersclub.o...&id=1&Itemid=2


This situation should serve as a lesson for all ocean users on the California MLPA frontline.

How hard it is to argue in an environmentalist lawsuit, as it was done in NC, that birds or crabs or whatever needs rest and a place to mate/feed/interact free from human disturbance? That the DFG should be forced, as required by the language of the MLPA's provision governing SMR, to close access to surfing and boating and other human activities?

As I said, the MLPA, as the law is written, delegates to the DFG the authority to control extractive and non-extractive use of MPA’s through adaptive management. This is particularly true for reserves. It is a burden that the DFG must carry, whether or not it wants to. And the environmental organizations will surely force the DFG to carry it.

Let's put it this way. Even if the DFG does not wish to close an area to boaters, surfers, divers, etc., all it takes is one lawsuit by an environmental organization to protect whatever it deems to need protection (Southern Boomer Beach Brown Spot Leg Fiddler Crab, a "newly discovered" sub-species of which there are only 38 in the world --as opposed to Southern Boomer Beach Yellow Spot Leg Fiddler Crab, of which there are a few hundreds, LMAO).

Any promise made by DFG is not worth the paper it's not written on because DFG can easily be ordered by a state court judge to "follow the law" upon being sued. The environmentalist will say it's "best available science" that the beach/ocean be closed to protect this "newly discovered" sub-species. DFG can simply shrug and said they have to follow the judge's order.

The Hatteras situation should serve as a clear warning to all CA ocean users. The MLPA loophole for closing ALL human access is big enough to drive a truck through--DFG promises not withstanding.

[36710(a) PRC]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.