MLPA Last Minute Change??
 

<o:p></o:p>
Who: California Fish and Game Commission
<o:p></o:p>
What: Notice of revised proposed changes in regulations concerning MPAs in the<o:p></o:p>
MLPA South Coast Study Region (see original message below)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
When: 15-day public review<o:p></o:p>

Where: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2010/proposedregs10.asp#632sc<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Changes proposed with a 15 day comment period - or you can just show up at the 12/15 meeting where the decision will be made. Is this a last minute bait and switch???

Switch without any real bait ?
 

I hit the link in the lovely e-mail from Melissa Henson and found the EIR that almost looks like a joke. Unknown number of businesses impacted and $0 economic impact for the proposed South Coast MPAs. Maybe, they have decided not to propose any new MPAs? I don't think so, but that is the only way the evironmental impact will be anything near zero.

I forwarded the EIR to Bob Fletcher to get his impute as I imagine he has seen this crazy document and will let you know if I get a response.

Attachment 3323

Notice on the comment text of that section in (d) it mentions a potential 1.6 million dollar cost ...

I read the proposed regulation. A few things jumped out at me.

They are proposing changing some boundary lines in order to make the boundaries more unidentifiable. In nearly every case, the closed areas were made larger rather than smaller.

The biggest jolt came when I read how the study determined these regulations would affect fishing activities. One section examined the net economic impact. Oceanside will get hit with an impact of nearly -30%. When it comes to profits, the port of San Diego is the big loser with a potential profit loss of about 25%.

Another section lists the loss of available fishing grounds by location and type of activity, (boat, kayak and diving). San Diego takes it in the shorts big time here with losses ranging up to as much as 41% (for divers targeting White Croaker). Kayak fishers will lose 20% plus of their access for nearly every type of fish.

These numbers blow me away. I am used to our Government doing stupid things but enacting a law that will have a 30% impact on a local economy seems beyond any stupidity that I have witnessed up to now. Similarly, reducing recreational fishing access to public waters by 25% or more is incredibly outrageous.

We can hope that some reasonable folks will step forward and send this thing back to the drawing board but I think there is a very good chance that this will not happen. The bureaucrats want a result and they do not seem to care how much pain it will cause to the general public. The next chapter will likely be played out in the courts.

This whole thing makes me very angry.

Bob