MLPA INFORMATION

[landwhale]

You should all read Ed Ziealskis BLOGS on the MLPA and Fish and Game comission. He shares with all concerned anglers the facts.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/weblo...outdoors-blog/

Then I would like to hear what you think

Steven Green

[Tman]

Thanks for posting that Steve....

When I read this, and the entire article, and the 'ties', it is just as was perceived...

"Surely this set the stage for the lively exchange at Thursday's Commission meeting between commissioners Sutton and Dan Richards. As much as Sutton wants to speed through the MLPA process and rubber stamp it into being, Richards has called for explanations of whom will be impacted by these marine protected areas and how they will be paid for in terms of enforcement, monitoring and public outreach."

Regarding the article and the conflicts of interest, is this not akin to insider trading on Wall Street?
Surely there has to be a conflict, legally. It shows that they had the financial backing, which we all knew. Now it seems there was motivation for the closures and efforts were made to accomplish their goal through payments, er, inflated salaries. Freudian slip there.

Thanks for the link, I plan to do some more reading between the lines...

[Tman]

Don't get me started...

"Sutton, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his state Natural Resources Agency secretary Mike Chrisman, don’t care that the state faces the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
So what if the Department of Fish and Game can’t afford to buy enough trout food to feed its newly hatched fry, fingerlings and sub-catchable trout.
So what if there’s not enough money to pay game wardens, key staff people to do research.
And finally, so what if the Marine Life Protection Act was so poorly funded it had to be rescued three times, the most recent by environmentalists using over $18 million of the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation’s money. The estimate by the Department of Fish and Game is that it will cost the state $30 million to $40 million a year to manage, enforce and do public outreach for the state’s network of marine protected areas. This, in a state that can’t afford to buy trout food for its hatchery fish.
Sutton and Chrisman, who represent Gov. Schwarzenegger, just want the MLPA to go forward. Worry about the money later. Let the next Governor, the next resource secretary and the next fish and game commissioner worry about funding this underfunded, boondoggle of an act."

Hey Mike Sutton, I'm sure you eat seafood...how do you like your fish?
Protected, then enveloped in nets, floundering out of water on a warm deck, just to be immediately frozen, ready for your plate?

Or are they just delivered, fresh, from any area you choose...

I think that is just the loophole we needed to delay the proceedings based on conflict of interests...

Conflict of Interest:

More generally, conflict of interests can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.

Can't get any clearer than that...

[Afran]

Does anyone know when one of the proposed plans would go into effect? Have they spoke about it?


I'm trying to get a time line on the future of my fishing career.

Thanks!

[Matt]

I am not sure how you could get more of a conflict of interest than what Mr. Sutton has, it is akin to being the one and only judge in a beauty contest that your wife is in.

I have gotten to the point where I have very, very, little faith in the belief that the whole damn coastline where I currently fish won't be closed entirely thanks to the MLPA. I just wonder how they justify closing down all that area which will directly affect all the businesses related to fishing in the midst of a recession? And how they can justify affecting our community in such a negative way and hurting our own local economy even more than it already is.

All these points have been made before and I am begining to agree with both Aquachico and Dorado50 in regards to the decisions already having been made in backrooms without any of the stakeholders group being involved at all and that the meetings are simply a "feel good" move to "con" everyone into thinking we actually had a chance at keeping our fishing grounds open.

I have yet to see any decisions based on real-time scientific evidence, if you judge by the recent squid bite activity I would hardly say that yellowtail have been impacted by our "evil" fishing. Judging by the summer squid bite I don't think it could be said that the level of WSB's has decreased in recent years, I would actually say they have increased in numbers significantly. If anything perhaps we should put a stop to the seiners, squid boats, and introduce smaller limits on all species of fish, and perhaps tighten up on the seasonal rockfish and ling seasons. Of course I am suggesting this and I am fairly certain that it already has been suggested by our friends involved in the stakeholder groups.

But as to the issue at hand in regards to Mr. Sutton, it seems to be very similar to a certain Mr. Cheney and his ties to contractors in Iraq. Which once again lends itself to me thinking that I should sell a great deal of my fishing and lobster gear as I currently do not believe we will have a fair shot at keeping our fishing grounds open. What I would like to know is, is the final decision of the BRTF/MLPA truly a final decision or are we going to be able to take a legal approach and file an appeal on it in a state court and argue these points in a legal forum before an impartial judge? And if we will be able to pursue legal action should we start a legal fund now and gain representation via our gentleman on the stakeholder's group? I am fairly certain every angler I know would be more than willing to donate some amount to such a fund. I know I certainly could and would gladly donate money to any of the stakeholders representing our interests in the stake holders group or for a legal action against the possible MLPA decision that would doom our local fishing grounds.

So I guess what I am really asking here, Steve, is what is the worse case scenario course of action? Would raising money help you guys? Whether it be for travel and gas money just to ease some of the burden that you guys are taking on to protect all fishermans rights, or for retaining a lawyer and starting an apeal process(if that is even possible?) agains the possible impending decision of the BRTF/MLPA. It does seem Mr. Sutton has a very huge conflict of interest in being part of this process and maybe that can work to our advantage if we will be able to legally appeal the decision in front of an impartial judge.

Mr. Sutton is definitely flirting with, if not all out crossing a line in being involved with so many "anti-fishing" groups, it certainly makes me question the validity and fairness of the MLPA process. Also, how can a fair decision be made if the entire process is being funded by groups all with an objective of closing down fishing versus our state, which is broke, and supposedly impartial? Makes you wonder.....all these concerns have been raised before I am sure at some point, but I really am starting to wonder about the legal process due to what seems to be a very one sided decision making process which Mr. Sutton seems to be at the very core of, and definitely being heavily influenced by.

I have not derived any sense of positivity in the decision going in the way that all the fisherman I know are hoping for. "Our guys" on the stakeholder board aren't even allowed to criticize the process without fear of being kicked off of the stakeholder's group, at least that is my understanding of the situation, isn't that in itself a violation of freedom of speech? And everytime I have asked anyone who is involved they get that look of a the little kid who just got his skateboard stolen by a bully. So somehow I think we as a group need to start possibly looking at ways to protect our rights as fisherman.

So to summarize, yes I absolutely feel Mr. Sutton needs to be removed with much haste.

Rant off.

[Afran]

Matt,

I enjoyed the read and the information.

Please fight for us! I would love to help but do not know what to do. What can I do to help to fight against these actions? Write the Governor? Write our SD Council? Give me (us) some advice here, because I'm clueless.

Thanks!

[Matt]

[quote=Afran;35730

Please fight for us! I would love to help but do not know what to do. What can I do to help to fight against these actions? Write the Governor? Write our SD Council? Give me (us) some advice here, because I'm clueless.

Thanks![/quote]

So Steve and Paul and a few others are fighting for us for sure, not me, but I would like to know what to do also ....So Steve please let us know!!

[Geoffkoop]

Originally Posted by Matt

So Steve and Paul and a few others are fighting for us for sure, not me, but I would like to know what to do also ....So Steve please let us know!!

I want to know what I can do too. Lets battle this thing.

[Corey]

I got $100 on the lawyer fund. That should cover about 15 minutes of service. Wait a minute, I know a couple of lawyers...Hey, What do you think?

[T Bone]

They will double the liscence fee with nowhere to fish.Thats how we do it in CALI.

[PB fisher]

Please share with us any relevant people to write, call or email. If everyone on this forum would take 30 seconds to write an email, I'm sure we would have hundreds in a week. I don't care for politics, much less the politicians- but by taking no action we are screwing ourselves.

[PAL]

"Our guys" on the stakeholder board aren't even allowed to criticize the process without fear of being kicked off of the stakeholder's group, at least that is my understanding of the situation, isn't that in itself a violation of freedom of speech? And everytime I have asked anyone who is involved they get that look of a the little kid who just got his skateboard stolen by a bully. So somehow I think we as a group need to start possibly looking at ways to protect our rights as fisherman.

I LOVE this turn of phrase. Very effectively put. With that out of the way, I'll reiterate what MJ and I are working to accomplish with the MLPA. Simply put, its to ensure impacts on kayak anglers are not overlooked and / or we're not victimized or targeted by larger, more powerful interests.

We're engaged at working within the process, with the belief that it will go forward with or without us. Please note that SAC, UASC, RFA, and many if not all the commercial fishing advocacy groups evidently share our opinion, as they are right there on the RSG too.

I know it looks bad, but as one of the commercial guys said to me, "I'm not going to participate in cutting my own throat." The meaning? We wouldn't be at the table if there were nothing to gain. Otherwise, we'd walk.

I say again, 5 of the 9 proposals in for analysis are fishing-friendly. That beats hell out of zero.

A few more points. The MLPA has little to do with fisheries management. It is a habitat protection plan plain and simple. It will do little to benefit highly mobile species such as yellowtail and white seabass; this is really about the reefs, rockfish, bass, the lobsters and other invertebrates that scurry along the bottom.

Money: MJ and I are not taking money from outside special interests (the RLFF). But so far we're ok; we have a budget of kayak-angler dollars we can dip into if needed to put gas in the tank.

Timing: assuming the current schedule, the BRTF will choose a prefered alternative in Oct or Nov. The Fish and Game Commission will kick it around for another 6 months or so, possibly longer, before finalizing things. Even then, we'll get another several to enjoy the places destined for closure. I think we're roughly two years off at this point.

Paul

[Billy V]

Originally Posted by PAL

A few more points. The MLPA has little to do with fisheries management. It is a habitat protection plan plain and simple. It will do little to benefit highly mobile species such as yellowtail and white seabass; this is really about the reefs, rockfish, bass, the lobsters and other invertebrates that scurry along the bottom.

This is exactly why most of us logical people are ticked off.
-The Fish and Game can achieve their objective by imposing Limits on desired species.
I do not see the advantage of blanket closures.

[PAL]

This is exactly why most of us logical people are ticked off.
-The Fish and Game can achieve their objective by imposing Limits on desired species. I do not see the advantage of blanket closures.

I can answer this one; it comes up again and again from the other side.

For the intrinsic value of natural ecosystems, in theory untouched by human disturbance.

You can look most of the time, but touch, never. Except for scientific collecting of course, but we want that. Can't have adaptive management without scientific monitoring.