Quote:
Originally Posted by mwm
"The MLPA law itself would not be the problem if it were enforced as written. It’s supposed to cost the state $250,000 a year, not $25 million or more."
Paul, is there really something in the original law that limits the cost to this amount? Has there been legislation that overturned this 250K/year ceiling you refer to, and if not, did the members of the BRTF task force know about this limit. If so, I will volunteer to find a contingency fee lawyer willing to file suit against the members of the BRTF, personally, for pain and suffering, taking of our natural resources, etc.... Actually, we probably have a basis for a class action lawsuit if this is true. That should get the politician's notice. I'm not the litigious type, but if we can turn the bloody thirsty Larach types against the enviromaentalists, it would be true poetic justice and serve a higher purpose.
|
Sorry, but you've been completely mislead on this issue of a ceiling on the cost to implement the MLPA. The F&G Commission held a hearing on this very matter and the DFG admitted that the $250K figure was merely for 3 DFG personnel to draw up a master plan for implementation. The $250K estimate never contemplated enforcement and subsequent study of the MPAs. It is PSO that has latched onto this and completely misled the fishing public into believing that the original estimate to implement and monitor the entire thing was just $250K. You are being manipulated. No one else attributes any credibility to these claims, which explains why they've never gained any traction.