Email DFG Commission!

[Holy Mackerel]

Thank Dan Richards for standing up to the BRTF!

Now that you know who you are dealing with, here's how to write them: fgc@fgc.ca.gov. The subject line should read something like: Comment on MLPA South Coast Process

[tattuna]

Is there another e mail address we can mail to? I tried the link but it won't go through.

I really want to thank Mr. Richards. Yesterdays meeting had a whole different feel and we were all treated with respect for the first time. Richards questioned people on both sides of the table and it finally felt like a "fair" process was going on. When he called out 2 of the BRTF members on having stake in marinas on both sides of PV the whole Dume/PV trade off (which came out of no where) finally made sense!

[dsafety]

Originally Posted by tattuna

When he called out 2 of the BRTF members on having stake in marinas on both sides of PV the whole Dume/PV trade off (which came out of no where) finally made sense!

Please explain this statement. Are you saying that some members of the BRTF have a conflict of interest involving investments in the PV area and that the DFG Commission now knows about it? Wouldn't that invalidate the BRTF's recommendations?

If this is the case, it could be huge.

Bob

[tattuna]

Richards asked BRTF members Shem and Anderson if they owned any marinas and they both said no. He then rephrased the question and asked if they operated any marinas and they both replied "yes, but on a month to month basis." One of them runs a marina at Cabrillo and the other at MDR. THOSE ARE THE CLOSEST MARINAS NORTH AND SOUTH OF PV! Richards questioned if there was a conflict of interest with them being on the BRTF and their participation with the marinas, then Meg butted in and stated the make up of the BRTF was supposed to be from people who were involved in the area. Then Richards asked Meg if she was on (I forget what council) that approves marina operator applications and she replied "YES".

I'm not too good with the computer, otherwise I'd post a link, but if you watch the video you can hear for yourself. I left the meeting by then, but watched it at work between appointments and that part happened a little after 4:00 pm. Sounds pretty damn "fishy" to me!

[robmandel]

it's the california coastal commission. she's been on it for a few years. girl gets around, doesn't she

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by dsafety

Are you saying that some members of the BRTF have a conflict of interest involving investments in the PV area and that the DFG Commission now knows about it? Wouldn't that invalidate the BRTF's recommendations?

That's exactly what he is saying...

It's my understanding that the guys in question do not own the marinas as the city actually owns them but they have long term leases and more importantly the fuel concessions for both Marinas.

The front side of Rocky Point gets fished hard from both the MDR and Cabrillo Marinas whenever the seabass yellows or Barracuda go off there, and since a bunch of boats go, and it's a long boat ride from both, the fuel guys make a fortune at both MDR and Pedro whenever a bite goes off at Rocky Point.

It's likely Meg and her enviro backers cut a deal with the Marinas allowing the front side of Rocky to stay open, in exchange for a full closure at Dume and BKR, a great fishing area which is essentially our La Jolla up here.

Dume and BKR are too far from the two Marinas to have and economic impact to them so they gladly threw those areas under the bus in order to keep Rocky Point open.

It's always about the money!!!

I've essentially been trying to tell people that something like this was going to happen for months now.... but I sure wasn't pleased to see it go down like it did. They pulled out all the stops and really did a number on us up here.

Honestly... long before the last BRTF meeting even got close I heard rumours from several people that the environmental movement was working on some back room deals in regard to PV and point Dume, but even I was surprised by the fact they did it so boldly and hit it from so many fronts, so many different groups at once. in the last minute, to get their way, and shut it down.

Honestly I think they pushed it too far and have now exposed their hand.. Looks like Richards called them on it too, and fortunately that paves the way for Fish and game to make some alterations in the IPA.

The Marinas are obvious but if you want real dirt, look at the city of LA and Malibu and their support of the closure at BKR.

I think the enviros cut some deals with cities in order to get their support for closures in exchange for letting them slide on environmental issues.

The federal Clean Water Act was amended in 1987 to include storm water discharge from municipalities, construction sites, and industrial sites.

That set the framework for the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to start issuing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits,and the EPA authorized the State of California to administer the NPDES program.

That program is now administered by the state Water Resource Control Board, which has nine local regions.

The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction over Los Angeles.

All cities in the LA area have to have NPDES permits. The permit require the development and implementation of programs to reduce the pollution in storm water and urban runoff.

The water board is now requiring municipalities to measure the amounts of heavy metals and other pollutants being carried into the storm drain system and forcing the cities to comply with maximum allowable levels of those pollutants.

Monitoring stations have already been set up to measure pollutants entering Los Cerritos Channel and soon they will also be installed along the Los Angeles River.

The city of LA has been stalling trying to either prevent the implementation of monitoring in the LA River, or get an extension as to how long they have to comply with the standards.

Several environmental groups including Heal the Bay have in the past threatened to sue to block any extensions, for LA in the process. That's their job, they are supposedly a watchdog organisation that watches the cities and makes sure they comply with the law when it comes to run off water quality issues.

The problem the cities face is that is no-one knows how much it will cost to clean up the storm water, and the cities will have to dip into their own general funds to pay for it, and right now due to the economy they are broke.

Just the monitoring setup for storm water going into Los Cerritos Channel is costing $250,000 this year. The monitoring of water entering the Los Angeles River is expected to cost much more.

Once they are monitored they will then have to meet the standards and that is going to cost tens of millions of dollars they do not have.

If Heal the Bay and other involved environmental groups just agreed to not block the extensions the City wants, they'd save the city millions. The LA officials in turn would have had no problem signing on to any plan closing the oceans to fishing, if they could have a temporary pass on this water quality issue.

We are talking millions and millions of dollars here, that's a lot of incentive.

That is exactly why I think the LA Board of supervisors signed on to the program with regard to closing Malibu at Dume and BKR at the last minute.

Someone cut a deal with them, and the card the enviros had to play was water quality issues and lawsuits over compliance with the amended clean water act.

Follow the money and that is exactly where it goes.

Laguna has their issues as well and so does Malibu with their outdated septic systems. Both those cities backed massive closures at their locations, both would of done that for a pass on water quality issues.

The Feds and the state are requiring the cities to clean up storm water but providing no funds for the very expensive process. There s a timeline they have to meet, and as the requirements get more tough, they also will become extremely expensive, and, at this point, I don’t think any of the cities know how they will be able to afford to pay for the required monitoring and filtration systems.

Bottom line... I think they Heal the bay and other enviro organisations working with Meg Caldwell might of cut deals on water quality issues in order to get them to sign on to the plan.

Like I said I posted about this before but I think it's now become so obvious anyone who looks closely at it can now see it. There are a lot of back room deals going on, without a doubt. A this point it's our job is to keep the pressure on and get Fish n Game to overrule the BRTF, and throw out the gains the enviros got with their back room deals.

Just my take, Jim

[tylerdurden]

One thing to ask the DFG in the email, is to make sure that all meetings about the SoCal MLPA be held in Southern California.

Otherwise they will be held in Sacramento, but don't worry, there will still be public comment ..

[tattuna]

But is there another e mail address to send to? I can't get the one Chris posted at the top to work for some reason....

[TCS]

Dear Sir or Madam:


I am writing to provide input to the Fish and Game Commission on the proposals submitted by the BRTF to create new Marine Protected Areas in Southern California. I appreciate that the Fish and Game Commission is welcoming public comment and is handling this process with transparency. My interested in this issue is based on my concern for the environment and my participation in the sport of kayak fishing. I paddle my kayak out into the waters off La Jolla to fish several times per month, often together with one of my children.


I share the goal of preserving our marine environment and follow the regulations established by the Fish and Game Commission to the letter. I also release most of the fish I catch and only keep fish for consumption occasionally. My view is that fishing in this manner, which is typical of sport fishermen in this area, is a sustainable and balanced use of our natural resources. If the scientists within the Department of Fish and Game were to conclude that any species of fish were threatened by this practice and were to change the limits or seasons for that species, I would respectfully adhere to the new rule without questioning it. I have always been confident that the Department of Fish and Game balances our right to fish with the need to protect our marine environment when creating new regulations.

I have followed the MLPA South Coast process carefully, and am very concerned that this historical approach of allowing fishing as much as possible while protecting the marine environment was not employed in this process. The MLPA process has been funded and dominated by interest groups whose starting point is that harvesting any natural resource, whether it be timber, minerals, land animals, or marine resources, is fundamentally wrong. Of course the people who hold and advocate those beliefs are free to do so, but it is not appropriate to have that philosophy be the driving force behind new fishing regulations. This unfortunate fact has seriously compromised the integrity of this process and the resulting proposal.

Ideally, at this stage in the process, the proposal before you would be a good compromise that resulted from honest negotiation and valid scientific assessments, and which took the needs of all stakeholders into account. If that were true, the Fish and Game Commission would be in a position to try and fund the proposal and consider approving it with little or no change. Unfortunately, that ideal outcome is not what happened. The proposal before you is not valid for the reasons stated above.

The root of this problem is that the process was funded and dominated by a powerful interest group and the only good solution is to start over. In our democracy, if an election were found to be compromised we would have a new election, even though that is costly and disruptive. The principle is the same.

Thank you for considering my comments.

[tylerdurden]

Originally Posted by tattuna

But is there another e mail address to send to? I can't get the one Chris posted at the top to work for some reason....

I'll check this evening. Mine went through but the address may have been different.

[PAL]

Bump! Now that Commisioner Dan Richards is asking the same questions we've been asking for the past year, let's make sure he knows we appreciate what he's doing.

The official Commission email address is fgc@fgc.ca.gov Consider a CC to California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman at
Mike.chrisman@resources.ca.gov.