Benninghoven resigns

[so cal shaggy]

Today chairman Benninghoven tendered his resignation as BRTF chairman to accept an appointment to the California Fish and Game Commission. I do not know what this will mean moving forward but we cannot falter with the pressure we have been putting fourth.

More info.............

Yesterday: Fish and Game Commission president resigns August 3rd, 2009 · by gfrost http://www.audublog.org/?p=2232

In a move that deadlock one of the state’s most important decision-making bodies when it comes to conservation, the president of the California Fish and Game Commission resigned suddenly on Friday, citing potential conflicts of interest with her full-time job. Cindy Gustafson was long considered a swing vote on a commission often divided on conservation and protection issues. The commission has some important decisions coming up, including Marine Life Protection Act designations for the North Central Coast.

Today: New Fish and Game Commissioner appointed just in time for MLPA vote
August 4th, 2009 · by gfrost http://www.audublog.org/?p=2249
Ending several days of speculation about the make-up of the State Fish and Game Commission in advance of a key vote on the Marine Life Protection Act, Gov. Schwarzenegger today appointed Donald Benninghoven, 76, of Santa Barbara to replace Cindy Gustafson, who resigned suddenly on Friday. Conservation advocates were particularly concerned about the sudden departure of Gustafson because it left the commission with an apparent 2-2 deadlock in advance of a key vote tomorrow on Marine Life Protection Act designations for the North Central Coast. Conservation groups had supported the appointment of Benninghoven, a Republican, to the post. The official announcement from the Governor’s office is below the fold:

Donald Benninghoven, 76, of Santa Barbara, has been appointed to the Fish and Game Commission. Prior to retiring, he served as executive director and member of the board for the City-County-School Partnership from 1998 to 2000, a cooperative venture of the California State Association of Counties, the California School Boards Association and the League of California Cities. Prior to that, from 1958 to 1998, Benninghoven held several positions at the League of California Cities including executive director. He served on the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force from 2007 to 2009. Benninghoven also previously served as secretary for the City-County-School Partnership, chairman of the California Center for Civic Renewal and a member of the Institute for Local Self Government Executive Committee. In addition, he was a member on the Governor’s Commission on Transportation Financing, vice chair of the California State Constitution Revision Commission and member on the Governor’s Commission on Local Government Financing. Benninghoven is a member of the California Game Wardens Foundation and is a lifelong outdoorsman, fisherman and hunter. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Benninghoven is a Republican.

[Grego]

EDIT: Never mind my previous comment...did a little reading

[tylerdurden]

Read the info, don't know what to make of it. The upcoming vote today on the Norcal MLPA will be a first tip off.

This could be good or bad. I just think we really have to be very vigilant and see what happens.

[Billy V]

At first glance it looks like Gov. Schwarzenegger is loading up the DFG Commissioners for a MLPA Vote and Win for the Schwarzenegger Team.

Let see which direction this Schwarzenegger Appointment to DFG, and the upcoming Vote go.

WE Must be Vigilant to the End.

[tylerdurden]

Any word on today's norcentral vote?


Some more info. Ben Pister is an RSG member. I talked to him at the open house in San Diego, he was a proclosure person, but wasn't unreasonable to talk to.



--- On Wed, 8/5/09, Benjamin_Pister@nps.gov <Benjamin_Pister@nps.gov> wrote:

From: Benjamin_Pister@nps.gov <Benjamin_Pister@nps.gov>
Subject: [Divebums] MLPA Round 3
To: diving@divebums.com
Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 2:08 PM


Hello Divebummers,

I've been reading the chatter on the list about the RSG meeting this week.
Since I am an RSG member I thought I would share a little on what's been
going on the past couple days. Forgive me if these ends up being
redundant. I get all the emails in digest form and sometimes my words are
moot when I send them.

First, as you many of you may realize we are now in Round 3 of proposal
development. That means we have developed a series of proposals and
submitted them to the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), Cal Fish and Game
(CDF&G), and the Science Advisory Team (SAT) twice before and now we'll do
it one final time. All this was planned from the beginning. The BRTF
evaluates the proposals from a policy perspective, CDF&G from a feasibility
perspective, and the SAT from a scientific perspective. As has been
pointed out in several venues and media, we didn't get glowing remarks, to
put it mildly, from any of these bodies on our Round 2 designs. There is
no need for me to expound on why here. Let me just say that working on
these shapes with the requirements and guidance we've been given is complex
to the nth degree. You can chalk it up to the sheer number of people in
SoCal and the varied uses of the ocean (as opposed to the science which I
think is pretty clear). But I digress . . .

Up until now the RSG has worked in three separate groups to develop
proposals to send on to the above groups. They were called Opal, Topaz,
and Lapis, in an effort to remove any kind of bias from the names (if that
seems overly pc and mundane, believe me, it helps to remove anything that
could be misconstrued.) Each group consisted of a variety of interest's
from commercial and sport fishing (consumptive use) to tourism and
conservation (non-consumptive use), stake holder agencies (e.g. National
Park Service) and even a few other agencies that can't easily be classified
such as Department of Defense (i.e. Navy) and the waste water industry.
The workgroups were also each designed to have expertise from all areas of
southern California from Pt. Conception to the Mexican border and all the
islands. And while I am at it, yes, diving is represented. Everyone on
the RSG is passionate about the ocean. And at least half the 64 members
are avid divers, consumptive and non-consumptive, skin diving, spear
fishing, lobster hunting, instructors, dive operators, scientific divers,
photographers, tech divers, wreck divers you name it. There are RSG and
SAT members who have over 10,000 dives each. Unless you like to dive naked
for polychaetes below 200 feet only on full moons, then it's safe to say
there is an RSG member who dives and likes to do the same things you do
under water. And I guarantee you we talk about scuba diving all the time.
In fact, it's because diving interests are so varied and shared by so many
people that it is easy to represent in a group like the RSG.

Because of the cross interests represented in the groups there was a lot
of, erm, discussion about all the various issues and interests. But for
Round 3 the groups have been re-arranged into ones that are more or less
along lines of interest. Workgroup 1 is supposed to still be a cross
interest group, made up of those stakeholders that could work well
together, work on issues beyond the people they represent, and could behave
themselves (to put it bluntly). Workgroup 2 is comprised essentially of
fishing interests. Workgroup 3 is comprised essentially of conservation
interests. I am in Workgroup 3. Each group is charged with submitting
proposals that meet the scientific guidelines (more on this in a sec), and
minimizing socioeconomic impacts (I think we should also be trying to
maximize socioeconomic benefits, too. But I digress again . . .) So I
don't think any group, in particular Workgroups 2 and 3, are going to crazy
in their respective directions.

I would encourage anyone and everyone to submit public comments. The RSG
and BRTF gets every single one of them whether they are spoken at the
meetings or submitted electronically. It is true that we have heard ad
nauseam from people about how they support or don't support the MLPA. At
this point I think those comments tend to fall on deaf ears. We all know
the issues. But what is helpful is if you have ideas about how they MPAs
should be drawn or placed, particularly in relation to the use and
ecological and economic benefits of one design/location or another. I
suggest being a little more constructive than saying things like "My kid
caught his first yellow tail in area x, please move your MPA south so we
can fish there some more."

I would also encourage folks on this list to email me and the other RSG
members directly with these suggestions. And I am happy to give my take on
certain areas or report on ideas for MPAs.

For La Jolla, as far as I know there is a large no take MPA being
considered by one group from Windandsea south. The current MPA in the Cove
is probably going to be left alone or slightly modified by all three groups
(my take on it), since it's been there so long and is so well known. Given
the number of swimmers in that area it's hard to get a boat in there
anyway. Most RSGers seem to be willing to leave the general northern La
Jolla area alone (even if in their hearts they don't want to). La Jolla in
general is a powder keg. A large MPA in the middle or northern area of
Point Loma is also being considered in some groups. I imagine most
proposals from here on out will have one or the other of these two designs.
Not both. But that's just my observation. I'm not making any promises.

The Del Mar MPA was an attempt to include some very deep rock habitat (rock
100-3000 meters deep), which exists off Del Mar. This is one of the rarest
marine habitats in southern California, because most of the bottom at depth
is mud or sand. And part of the scientific guidelines are to include a
certain amount of key habitats in our region (one being rock 100-3000
meters deep). It was also a design that had a lower impact on some
fisheries. That's the crux of the rationale behind Del Mar. It's very
unclear whether the Del Mar MPAs will be in any Round 3 proposals. Even in
my own workgroup we are still discussing what, if anything, to do there.

Hope this is informative to some of you. The next meeting of the RSG will
be September 9th and 10th.

Benjamin

P.S. The Fish and Game Commission is meeting today (I think) to adopt the
MPAs of the North Central Coast, if anyone is interested. The end result
is almost in place for that region.


><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Ex mari, scientia

Dr. Benjamin Pister, Ph.D.
Chief of Natural Resources Management and Science
Cabrillo National Monument
National Park Service

Ph: (619) 523-4581
Fax: (619) 226-6311

[tylerdurden]

So in the NorthCentral region today the brand new F&G Commissioner voted with the pro closure bloc of the vote . A motion was also put up to stall the process which fell short on the same vote.

The plan that went through ain't good for that region I hear. He voted with the BRTF and their preferred plan .

I think it was unrealistic to expect him to vote to stall the process, and there wasn't much hope he would vote for 2XA. Seeing as he was just on a BRTF, did we really think he would go agianst the NorCentral BRTF recommendation?




This is why we MUST keep the pressure up on the RSG members, all of them, to keep our best spots off every map. When the BRTF meets to pick their preferred map, or make one if they choose, we must be there to ENSURE our kayak fishing future. The F&G commission just rubber stamped the proposal for NorthCentral that the BRTF recommeded. I see no reason our region will be different.

The good news is our presence has made a HUGE difference. The bad news is every time we slack off, things go against us even worse.

WE MUST KEEP IT UP, AND WE MUST KEEP WORKING WITH THE PROCESS

[Billy V]

The latest injustice that was forced on NorCal should serve as a Warning!

If we let up for a minute we will lose it all.

[tylerdurden]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outp...rs-liking.html

The article about it.