MLPA news in the U/T

[dsafety]

In case you missed it, there was some MLPA news in Sunday's Union-Tribune. According to Outdoors writer Ed Zieralski, the expected cost of managing the proposed MLPA regulations may be too much for the state to cover. Here is the link.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori.../?zIndex=81327

To me, it seems that the cost of this thing is not getting enough attention. I am not just talking about the ongoing management costs, which, according to the article could be as much as 40 million dollars a year. There is also the issue of lost revenues to local economies such from such sources as commercial and sport fishing, tourism and, yes, kayak shops. This figure is likely to dwarf the estimated MLPA management costs. In addition, there will probably be enormous legal bills that the State will have to cover for defending the MLPA against lawsuits brought by all those affected by this proposed regulation.

There has to be a reasonable way to address the issue of protecting our fisheries. The MLPA is certainly not the answer.

Bob

[Holy Mackerel]

Originally Posted by dsafety

To me, it seems that the cost of this thing is not getting enough attention. I am not just talking about the ongoing management costs, which, according to the article could be as much as 40 million dollars a year. There is also the issue of lost revenues to local economies such from such sources as commercial and sport fishing, tourism and, yes, kayak shops.

This is why my letters were tailored to Gov. officials about operating costs, and also, lost revenue. We need to keep the heat up, we all can still inquire our legislature, local, and statewide to comment, and state their position, either by letter, or calling. Usually emails end up with auto-responses, but if that is all one has in them, please email!

The current letter drive is not over, we need to keep the heat up!

thanks,

chris (running for city council District 1 in 2010)

[driftwood]

MLPA is a slow go and might be stopped


2:00 a.m. April 12, 2009

We have some concerns, and this is a horrible economic time for all of us and particularly the small communities in the state,” Gustafson said. “I can tell you right now we don't do enough monitoring of the trout in the Smith River.”
Key state legislators such as Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, have been made aware of the burden these marine protected areas will put on the state's budget. Florez will lead an investigation into the MLPA and alleged conflicts of interests of which Sutton and others have been accused.
On top of that, the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans put the commission on notice that it likely will be sued if it continues on with the MLPA process in the current manner.
If the state legislature doesn't halt or slow down this MLPA process, maybe a judge will.

---

[Royak]

Originally Posted by driftwood

On top of that, the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans put the commission on notice that it likely will be sued if it continues on with the MLPA process in the current manner. If the state legislature doesn't halt or slow down this MLPA process, maybe a judge will.

Finally! Our leaders are threatening to bring this matter into court. (Do I detect the strapping on of cojones here?) Beware of enviro-lurkers on our pro-fishing forums that will insist a lawsuit would upset the BLTF, cost too much, or have no chance.

[Billy V]

Originally Posted by dsafety

There has to be a reasonable way to address the issue of protecting our fisheries. The MLPA is certainly not the answer.

Bob

There is.........
Leave them alone!

[PAL]

PSO lobbyist George Osborn delivered powerful testimony to the CA Fish and Game Commission last week. It is available on the SAC website at http://www.sacemup.org/pdf/04-08-200...CreFunding.pdf

Here's the part that is attracting the most attention:

The Legislature commanded the Commission to "ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines." Fish and Game Code § 2853(b)(5). Moreover, implementation was to be limited “to the extent funds are available.” Id., § 2859(b). The Commission is without legal authority under the Act to implement restrictions and closures unless the Commission also commands the resources to fairly enforce its regulations and, equally important, scientifically monitor the effect of its regulations. Otherwise, the Commission acts to the detriment of recreational opportunities and contrary to statute. A court would not permit this.

The Legislature commanded that the Commission “annually until the master plan is adopted …promptly act upon petitions … to add, delete, or modify MPAs, favoring those petitions that are compatible with the goals and guidelines” of the Act. Fish and Game Code § 2861(a). Inherent in
the Commission’s obligation is its ability to evaluate the performance of MPAs in view of the Act’s goals and guidelines. Yet the Commission lacks the legal competence to evaluate the MPAs it has already designated because the State lacks sufficient monitoring resources. This is
because the Commission’s regulatory reach has exceeded its grasp of scientific and enforcement resources.

By pursuing the current course of action with regard to the MLPA, the Commission is exposing itself to litigation and, frankly, invites such litigation.

The PSO has not reneged on its commitment to work within the process. On the contrary, we’re just trying to ensure that the state fulfills a commitment to us that the MLPA would be implemented in a fair, transparent, science-based fashion.

If you'd like to donate funds to the PSO, here's how:
Go to the Keep America Fishing webpage:
https://secure2.securewebexchange.co...cafishing.org/.

Those who prefer good old fashioned mail can send a check to:

American Sportfishing Association
225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 420
Alexandria, VA 22314

Please make your check out to ASA, and write "KAF/KFAC" in the memo line. Any amount helps!

Thanks