MLPA's - I know where the money for Franks Track went!

[pharmer]

Luckily, Arnold and the rest of the state government were able to find $35 - $40 million annually in order to implement fishing closures (MLPA's) to most of the great saltwater bass fishing locations along the California coast. The conservation groups have taken over the commission, and instead of reduced limits or slots that fisherman reasonably expected and have been so successful else where ( no additional costs) they have decided to spend $30- $40 million to just close it. So the money saved by closing state parks and ramps is going to fund fishing closures. I don't think the environmental groups could be any happier

The state is actually voting on funding for the MLPA's (fishing closures) today. Anglers can help by writing your assemblymen and state senators and request they rethink funding for fishing closures (MLPA's) and put the money towards keeping ramps and state parks open. I know that the ocean closure don't necessarily effect fresh water guys YET, but if this goes through, just watch how fast they turn their attention to making paces like Casitas fresh water reserves to save those poor defenseless fish.

Any help is appreciated, Phil

[Dan McKenzie]

Pretty sad they won't even follow their own rules.


Latest MLPA decision side-steps established Blue Ribbon Task Force guidelines

SACRAMENTO, CA - June 1, 2009 – It’s becoming increasingly evident that the interests of ocean closure advocates are taking precedence in California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) implementation process which threaten to overshadow democratic process, the state’s budget crisis, and the lack of scientific data needed to designate effective and efficient marine protected areas (MPAs) off California’s coast.

The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) – the organization that represents recreational fishing and boating interests, along with other organizations – has expressed its strong disappointment to the MLPA staff and the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) regarding the manner in which the MLPA implementation process is progressing and which could restrict or close a significant area of California’s coastal waters to public access, which primarily means recreational fishing.

“There is no doubt that we support the state’s intentions to protect essential habitat and maintain healthy fish populations,â€

[acm95301]

bump

[Nu2Cal]

http://www.keepamericafishing.org/california.html

The other link didn't work.

Joe

[acm95301]

Senator.Denham@sen.Ca.gov is the email for meced county Senator.

[dockboy]

You know sometimes I wonder. The MLPA process caught the Northern and Central portions of the state completely by surprise. A miniscule portion of the fisherman were aware of the proposal and the result was a large lack in opposition to its passing in those regions.
In Southern California, fisherman have become more aware; the fight has grown. And when the opposition grew stronger. Read a bit more on the process past and present. The C Proposal recieved the least amount of votes in the RSG comittees and all, yet is still the one to be enforced. The fact that the shadow organizations and their figure heads in the environmental sector representinging the proposal struck me as no surprise.
But you know what strike me as really odd? This site. The inactivity of the angling community outside saltwater anglers as a whole. Quite frankly, Im a little ashamed. Do you really think once the MLPA is passed they'll stop at the coasts? We already saw the case against the DFG earlier this year that cut stocking to hundreds of sites across the state, on the basis of extremist environmental science and politics. This process has been going on for months, yet it seems we here are stuck outside reality. An attack on any angler here in Cali will result in further reprocussions for the angling community as whole. Once the politically motivated representatives serving as environmentalists have the coasts, they will turn their attention on freshwater policy, I guarantee you. They have, up until very recently, steamrolled the efforts of commercial and sportfisherman working together, and have been ruthless in their methods, even if it means cheating others out of their right to speak and ignoring the basis of the democratic process the meetings they hold are based on. Do you think it would be that hard to squash the widely scattered and broken groups that our freshwater angler population is, after having already destroyed the jobs of thousands of commercial fisherman and sportboat operators without a second thought?
Im sorry, I guess what Im saying this is calling foul awful late in the game. If we really want our rights to fish in California, then perhaps its best everybody joins the fight, not just the salt guys.

BTW, the state funding originally spoken of is the tip of the iceberg. State funds don't matter to this process; Arnold made a huge cut to the original and revised budgets for MLPA already. The shadow groups and powerful financiers of the process have more than enough funds to make their voices heard, and they have largely kept it afloat. Julie Packard of the H&P franchise family is but one of the figurehead "conservationists" donating their funds to help shut down our fishing.

But remember, this is just my opinion, my two cents.

[BassManDan]

Preface, its been a couple years since I was up to date on this stuff, so if I say something out dated, thats why!

I by no means consider myself a fisheries management expert or a politician, but regarding the "Proposals" (A-E, if memory serves me correctly)... how much influence do you think was exerted on a favored proposal because of other coat tail laws included in the whole package?

The whole idea of the various proposals was a sound concept, with some proposals with more stringent management regulations and those with much more lax regulations. The problem inherent is that its not biologists, fishery managers and conservation ecologists making the decision as to which proposal to put in place, it is our lawmakers (who've proven they can waste our money...and do little else!) and politicians who approve and implement these regulations, and I'd be willing to bet my boat that not a one of them have any semblance of a scientific background, and therefore even an educated guess as to which proposal would be the best taking into account the best available scientific data.

That said, MLPA's, MPA's etc. are a great tool for fishery management and definitely need to be implemented in certain locations with specific regulations for each, but until we have people that know what each regulation means, in terms of sustainability, recreational quality and environmental conservation or preservation, these MLPA's are not gonna do us a bit of good.

I'll step off my soap box now...

[pharmer]

I whole heartedly agree Dan. Increased regs and decreased limits have been needed for a while. Complete closure at a $35 million annual price tag without trying tried and proven conservation methods like slot / size limits or reduced total bags at a cost of $0 is insane. Unfortunately groups like the nature conservancy, Sierra Club and Surfrider have no sympathy for people doing things that they don't like or get in THEIR backyard. From what I'm hearing from the few fishing stakeholders is that these groups aren't hearing anything about compromise or increased regs. Phil