View Single Post
Old 01-21-2016, 06:49 PM   #10
Silbaugh4liberty
Fishing Patriot
 
Silbaugh4liberty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by taggermike View Post
The whole mlpa "process" was a political feel good thing rather than a scientific ecological endever. The process was rammed thru at a speed that didn't allow science or data collection to be done. If asecements are done evety 10 years, or 5 or 100, the process is fundamentally flawed because initial pre-protection data was not collected. How can you claim, or even know, is things have changed when you don't have at least 2 things to compair. the 10 to 20 year period will provide data but again, with out the beginning data this data will be much less valid. Mike
Not only that, but it violates California's Constitution, but what politicians actually read the law these days? We know good old Barry doesn't.

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.

So basically the DFG is only allowed to make rules regulating the seasons, and what equipment we can use to fish (# of lines, hoopnets, speargun, etc.).

No where does the law state that by statute they may they allow designated (NO FISHING ZONES). I'm not necessarily against having an MLPA within reason, (i.e. scientific data, research and proof they are working, and length of time imposed). We need to protect the nature we enjoy, but they aren't representing the people when they make executive decisions like this. They need the people to vote on it.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

__________________
Silbaugh4liberty is offline   Reply With Quote