Science and the MPA's - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

robmandel · 05-06-2010, 01:49 PM

you might be surprised to hear this, but real science had nothing to do with the MPA designations. For instance, look at rocky point (palos verdes). it was the jewel of the enviros, but all that got closed was a small section away from RP, no canyon, etc., AND a superfund cleanup site, full of PVC's (or soemthing like that) as well as being subject to much (natural) erosion and runoff. the enviros were pissed about losing RP. however, that was done in exchange for closing malibu (and I'm sure other places as well). two BRTF members (schem and anderson) are business partners, have the lease on the MDR fuel dock, and would have been hit hard with the closures. the never disclosed this and then they lied about all this to the F&G commission. all the local city councils, and many other pols (including state rep ted lieu) all wrote to support keeping RP open. that's for starters.

follow the money: packard foundation, monterey bay aq., stanford U. see all the names linked together: mike sutton, meg caldwell, barton thompson, many others.

the SAT? several members received HUGE grants from packard, some are linked directly with MBA and stanford. for some, pretty much their whole funding comes from the PF. two of the guys got 15 million last several years. but I'm sure their scientific integrity wasn't compromised.

I know, it's hard to believe

there were lies upon lies presented as "fact": overfished stocks, declining popualtions, loss of habitat habitat, etc. in fact, many of the concerns, the laguna tuna platoon and their sand build up, has nothing to do with fishing. in fact, almost nothing they were concerned about is addressed with MPA's.

the process was as dirty as a thai whorehouse. and no paper bothered to even write a word. and we wonder why california is in such a shitty position.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

05-06-2010, 01:49 PM	#4
robmandel Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 186	you might be surprised to hear this, but real science had nothing to do with the MPA designations. For instance, look at rocky point (palos verdes). it was the jewel of the enviros, but all that got closed was a small section away from RP, no canyon, etc., AND a superfund cleanup site, full of PVC's (or soemthing like that) as well as being subject to much (natural) erosion and runoff. the enviros were pissed about losing RP. however, that was done in exchange for closing malibu (and I'm sure other places as well). two BRTF members (schem and anderson) are business partners, have the lease on the MDR fuel dock, and would have been hit hard with the closures. the never disclosed this and then they lied about all this to the F&G commission. all the local city councils, and many other pols (including state rep ted lieu) all wrote to support keeping RP open. that's for starters. follow the money: packard foundation, monterey bay aq., stanford U. see all the names linked together: mike sutton, meg caldwell, barton thompson, many others. the SAT? several members received HUGE grants from packard, some are linked directly with MBA and stanford. for some, pretty much their whole funding comes from the PF. two of the guys got 15 million last several years. but I'm sure their scientific integrity wasn't compromised. I know, it's hard to believe there were lies upon lies presented as "fact": overfished stocks, declining popualtions, loss of habitat habitat, etc. in fact, many of the concerns, the laguna tuna platoon and their sand build up, has nothing to do with fishing. in fact, almost nothing they were concerned about is addressed with MPA's. the process was as dirty as a thai whorehouse. and no paper bothered to even write a word. and we wonder why california is in such a shitty position.