Nor Cal MPA

[Tman]

I will be fishing wherever I want, new MPA's or not.

And if they decide to write me a ticket, so be it. Time to challenge the ruling in court based on the right to fish.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

[mtnbykr2]

Originally Posted by Tman

I will be fishing wherever I want, new MPA's or not.

And if they decide to write me a ticket, so be it. Time to challenge the ruling in court based on the right to fish.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

AMEN BROTHA!

[jbm]

Did the NorCal lawsuit not have the Brown Act/Open Meeting law violation claims? Was it really only the 2 issues mentioned in the "article?"

And by the way, it by no means sets any kind of precedent. They can submit the ruling for consideration in the other lawsuits, but the judge is not bound to follow it or even agree.

[PAL]

^No, the lawsuit did not cover the Brown Act. The suit argued the Fish and Game Commission exceded its authority on a number of procedural grounds. Here's my story on the issue:

Breaking news!: Judge delivers blow to lawsuit

MLPA Challenge Suffers Court Setback

BY PAUL LEBOWITZ
WON Staff Writer

SAN DIEGO — On Monday, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager dealt the legal challenge against the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act a sharp blow.

Confirming his tentative order of Oct. 6, Prager rejected arguments brought by angler advocates United Anglers of California, Coastside Fishing Club and Robert C. Fletcher that the Fish and Game Commission exceeded its statutory authority when it approved new marine protected areas in Northern California.

Fletcher, past president of the Sportfishing Association of California, was undaunted by the setback. “As we all are, I’m very disappointed the judge didn’t appear to understand the arguments we made. We still stand by those arguments,” he said. Fletcher further told the Union-Tribune’s Mike Lee that an appeal is under consideration. “We think our case was very solid,” he added.

The ruling did not directly affect planned South Coast MLPA closures, now set for a January 1, 2012 implementation. The UASC lawsuit originally targeted both the northern California and south coast regions, but the lawsuit was split as the south coast start date continually slipped, making the legal challenge premature.

It was the first court setback for the effort to hold the state accountable for a marine reserve planning process that singles out fishermen but does nothing to halt damage to the marine environment caused by sewer outfalls and industrial uses. Previously, Fletcher decisively prevailed when he sued for access to meeting agendas, emails and other records generated during the MLPA planning process. The so-called Blue Ribbon Task Force had argued they were immune to laws designed to protect the public from secretive, back-room dealings. The court found otherwise, compelling the BRTF to release communications that demonstrate a pervasive pattern of closed-door wheeling and dealing – some would say at the behest of the MLPA’s private funders, the Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation.

"From the outset, it was clear that the MLPA process was set up to reach a predetermined outcome under the fiction of an allegedly open and transparent process," Fletcher previously told WON.

Anglers continue to mobilize resources for the legal battle. In response to a $50,000 challenge grant from the American Sportfishing Association, Okuma, Coastside members and sportfishing pioneer Ingrid Poole each pledged $10,000 to the Ocean Access Protection Fund, and Fletcher poured in another $1,000.

"We're in this fight to the end. We're working hard on behalf of recreational and commercial fishermen who don't agree with the MLPA and the decisions of the Fish and Game Commission. We'd like all the help we can get to continue the battle," Fletcher said.

From http://www.wonews.com/blog.aspx?ID=1501

[Matt]

Let me reiterate fuck the map, the MPLA and die hippie die

[ful-rac]

Originally Posted by Matt

Let me reiterate fuck the map, the MPLA and die hippie die

Amen!.....fuck them and their "Predetermined outcome....." And their we know whats good for you, you Neanderthal attitude". We'll all find a way!