|
Arnie and his enviro cronies screwed us--AGAIN
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...aises-doubts-/
Michael Sutsos was such a new appointment to the California Fish and Game Commission that his photo still hadn’t been posted Monday on the Commission’s Web site. No need to put it up now. Sutsos, 56, of Sonoma, who was appointed to the Commission on Sept. 9, by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, appears to have been unceremoniously unseated Monday, 18 days later, by the lame-duck California Governor. Sutsos sat in on one, two-day Fish and Commission meeting earlier this month, and now he’s gone. Calls to Schwarzenegger’s office and the Fish and Game Commission were not returned. But Dan Richards, one of Sutsos’ fellow commissioners, said he received a call about it on Monday. Also, George Osborn, who represents several fishing organizations and the California Fish and Game Warden’s Association, said he was told Sutsos was removed from the Commission. “Obviously he wasn’t going to vote the way the Governor wanted him to vote,” Osborn said. “He was more conscientious about California’s marine resources than he was about politics.” The Ocean Conservancy, which throughout the process has backed the most severe ocean closures, could not be reached for comment. Sutsos replaced Commissioner Don Benninghoven, whose confirmation never made it to the state Senate for approval after sportfishing groups complained about his conflict of interest regarding the Marine Life Protection Act. The MLPA, passed in 1999, calls for a network of marine protected areas along the California coast. The Fish and Game commissioners will have the final vote on all sections of the MLPA. The Central Coast and North Central Coast closures are in. The South Coast is in the environmental review period, and the North Coast section already is being worked on. Benninghoven had been a member of the Blue Ribbon Task Force prior to his nomination to the Commission by Schwarzenegger and was viewed by both sportfishing and commercial fishing groups as a “shill,” which is what fellow Fish and Game Commissioner Dan Richards of Upland called him in an interview today. “This just shows how corrupt this process is,” Richards said. “This process, the Marine Life Protection Act, is so corrupt, so offensive it’s unimaginable. Gov. Schwarzenegger is a forked-tongue devil.” Richards and Jim Kellogg, the president of the Fish and Game Commission, were joined by Sutsos on a recent vote to extend the deadline for comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Coast Region of the Marine Life Protection Act. Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Ocean Conservancy have been battling sportfishing, commercial fishing and several public agencies on the matter of the extension. Those groups want more time to study the more than 500-page document and then comment on it. Kellogg called for a special Commission meeting, which will be held Wednesday, and Sutsos joined Richards and Kellogg in voting for the meeting to discuss the extension for the comment period on the environmental document. “The reason I have such a problem with (Sutsos) getting taken off the Commission is that this denigrates and disrespects every person who worked on the MLPA process,” Richards said. “Many of the people who worked on the stakeholder groups weren’t paid, certainly weren’t hired guns. That’s why this is so offensive to me. These people don’t care about what the science says, what the reality is, or how what waters they close will affect people’s livelihoods.” Richards said he once was one of Schwarzenegger’s biggest financial and political supporters. But he no longer is. “He’s so worried about his legacy that he will do anything right now to preserve his legacy with this,” Richards said. “I have a feeling when this is all over, he’s not going to like his legacy one bit. His legacy right now is damn the people, the government knows more than the people. I truly hope (Schwarzenegger’s) legacy is appropriately tarnished by this.” Richards said the first sign he saw of the Governor’s – and his environmental cronies -- complete manipulation of the MLPA process dates back to when Cindy Gustafson resigned as Fish and Game Commissioner. Many suspected Gustafson told Schwarzenegger’s staff that she wouldn’t vote for the more severe network of closures called for by the MLPA. When Gustafson let Schwarzenegger’s people know, she was forced to resign. Benninghoven moved over to the Commission seat from his role as chairman of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, which oversees the MLPA stakeholder groups and sends the final ocean closure options to the Commission. The Blue Ribbon Task Force also has been criticized for being biased in its approach due to its environmental connections through task force member Meg Caldwell. “Benninghoven was a plant by the radical environmentalists,” Commissioner Richards said. “(Sutsos) was asking reasonable questions about fisheries and what fisheries in California were in trouble. He sounded like one of the most reasonable people I’ve ever met. He was a reasonable voice who asked reasonable and intelligent questions.” Richards said when Sutsos asked if any California fisheries were in crisis, the Department of Fish and Game staff could not identify one that was. “That’s because when we did have fisheries in trouble, the federal and state regulations were changed to protect those species and bring them back,” Richards said. “Now those species have rebounded, and the Department says there isn’t one species that is in crisis. Yet these radical, left-wing environmentalists want to put up massive reserves to keep people from fishing. It’s all being funded, this takeover of California’s marine resources, by the Packard Foundation, backed by a billionaire with nefarious intentions. They are anti-fishing, anti-hunting, anti-people.” Richards said the removal of Sutsos by Schwarzenegger will backfire on the Governor, now in the last months of his administration. “They’ve already been sued (by fishing groups) for how corrupt the MLPA process has been,” Richards said. “This will anger even more fishermen and other groups, like the eight to 10 major public agencies who have requested more time to read this environmental impact report. That’s the problem this Governor is going to have. He’s not just fighting fishing groups with agendas. There are public agencies who want more time, too. But the radical environmentalists who are controlling this don’t want any public comments they’ll have to address. They want to limit comments and stifle input, which is exactly opposite of what the California Environmental Quality Act is all about. It is set up for legitimate challenges.” Richards said he is speaking out because Schwarzenegger can’t do anything to him like he did to Sutsos. “I’m confirmed, and he can’t pull me off the Commission,” Richards said. “He’s stuck with me.” Richards said he once was a giant supporter of Schwarzenegger. “I really believed in him,” Richards said. “That’s why this is so shocking to me and so disappointing. It’s like Fantasy Land up there in Sacramento these days. None of this is going to get us anywhere.” Richards predicted that the MLPA closures will be overturned in court once all the corruption is exposed that went on with the process. He said a judge will look at the lack of time given for the environmental document in the South Coast Region and throw the document out. “What (Schwarzenegger) did here with (Sutsos) is the height of arrogance, but it’s foolish beyond belief,” Richards said. >>>>>>>>>>. Tuesday, September 28, 2010 New commissioner gets axed Governor Terminates New Fish and Game Commissioner SACRAMENTO - Michael Sutsos of Sonoma is the most recent sporstsman to fall victim to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s wrath. Sutsos, so briefly a member of the Fish and Game Commission that his photo never made it onto the official commission webpage, was summarily terminated on Monday September 28 when the governor rescinded his appointment. No replacement was named, but sportsmen can be sure the new commissioner will toe the governor’s aggressively anti-fishing line on the MLPA. Sutsos didn’t, voting with commissioners Dan Richards and Jim Kellogg merely to consider extending the South Coast environmental review period from a too-brief 45 days. The matter will be deliberated at a special session this Wednesday in McClellan, a Sacramento suburb. Prospects for an extension, necessary due to the complexity of the 545 page document, are now questionable. The timing brings to mind another of the governor’s brazen MLPA power plays. Then commissioner Cindy Gustafson mysteriously resigned days prior to the implementation hearing for the MLPA’s north-central coast study region. Career politico Don Benninghoven was plucked from the head of the Blue Ribbon Task Force to hand deliver the decisive, anti-angler vote. Ironically, Sutsos took Benninghoven’s commission seat when the state Senate chose to let the clock expire on his confirmation – largely at the behest of outraged fishermen. Fish and Game commissioners may serve up to a year without senate endorsement. Prior to that stamp of approval, commission appointees serve at the whim of the governor. Sutsos’ commission term was snuffed after just 18 historically short days and a single two-day meeting. “I didn’t ask the right questions. Or maybe I did,” Sutsos said when reached at the Black Point Sports Club to explain his removal for hinting that he thinks for himself. Commissioner Dan Richards was outraged by the governor’s maneuvers. “This just shows how corrupt this process is. This process, the Marine Life Protection Act, is so corrupt, so offensive it’s unimaginable. Gov. Schwarzenegger is a forked-tongue devil,” Richards told the Union-Tribune’s Ed Zieralski. Richards went on to predict the move will come to haunt the governor, further taint his legacy, and expose the MLPA railroad job to legal challenge. Calls to the governor’s office were not returned. http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?id=1...%20gets%20axed __________________ A spearo, but we are in this MLPA mess together |
:arne1::D
|
Quote:
Unfortunately for Stan K G, "Reasonable" is a term for bending over and closing your eyes. The MLPA process has given fisherman nothing. And they have gained nothing out of it. There is nothing Reasonable about it. No matter what Maps come up, its the Fisherman losing... Another unfortunate aspect is there is alot of new Kayakfishing folks int he scene these days (not that im an old salt or a season vet myself) But Its important that these new folks get educated on this MLPA topic. You get alot of Stan K G, and Young Mola comments alot these days becuase they werent around for the Meetings, and They werent around when the process was in the "infuence war phase" when the maps were being created. Its really a drag going over this process, over and over, It can be a turn off for people becuase its so long drawn out, and detailed. Including all the crooked politics behind it. But its important to get more folks involved and educated. This process allows for more closures at a later time, or map expansions... With this process being exposed for what it is. Kayak fishing has a very grim future. There has been many here who have dedicated themselves so much to this process. Its the rest of us who have a duty to spread the word, and insure our sport has a future in this state. |
Lets not be hasetfull to prosecute the ill informed.
Stan, If you want you can give me a call, ill PM you my #. Ill explain a couple key points about the process so I can bring you up to date. Excuse those with harsh comments. Many people put alot of time and hard work into fighting these closures. Its a passionate topic. |
The apparent fact that the powers that be do not want a reasonable moderate who pays attention to the facts involved with the DFG does not surprise me. We all know that most Government decisions are purchased by special interests these days.
All the Machiavellian twists and turns of the MLPA process now has me fully confused. Do we want the DFG to sit on its backside and not do anything for months and years to come? Do we want to push for a reasonable resolution soon? Which would be better? The next question involves the incoming Governor. I tried for months, but could not pin down either the Brown or Whitman camp on where they stand on the MLPA issue. All I ever got were promises that someone would get back to me. We have no idea what either candidate might do once they gain power. Is the devil you know better than the devil you don't know? My gut feeling is the Whitman might be more inclined to see things our way but if she is successful in buying her way into the Governor's chair, she will undoubtedly have a bunch of big political debts to pay off. Some of those payments could be going to people who do not agree with our point of view. Brown, on the other hand is more of a known quantity. Unfortunately, his leanings have historically favored the the enviros. This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as he listens to some of the more reasonable people in that camp. We could end up getting screwed either way. Brown and Whitman are debating tonight. It sure would be nice if someone could sneak in a question on the MLPA. Unlikely but one can hope. Bob |
Whitman is run by political advisors. What she will say in public and What she will say in private may be 2 differant things. (or even what shes saying in public for that matter)
Thats a Craps Table Dice roll...win big or bust. Were as Jerry Brown is well connected with the political enviormental possey. His apointments to the Air/Carb board speak plainly enough. The guy seeks support from Unions and Enviormental influences. Besides why trust a man whos hands have been on the kiln shaping the mess this state is in. The guys been in CA politics for 40 years. Hes done nothing to stop it, what makes you think he will now? Hes never balanced a payroll in his life anyways. Just look where the money is comming from, and whos contributing to whome. And youll have your answer to that question. Ive said it before the next governor has the power to work on either sides behalf on this process. The State STILL doesn thave a budget for this year... It will be the least of the next Governors problems. |
I would not expect to get any help from either Brown or Whitman. I hate to say it but unfortunately our best hope is with the Courts.
|
Well forget about Jerry Brown.He is such a UN-represenative of the people that as ATTONEY GENERAL he took an OATH to UPHOLD THE LAW,that is to say THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.He is Taking a political stand (Stunt)against Prop 8 because its what his party stands on and his leftie buddies count on him to do.He should just say "I am Against it,but the people have spoken"Dont think that he cares what you think.As for Meg (Whitman not that tree banger Caldwell)I dont know what her stand is but she would seem to be the lesser of 2 evils.
|
I dont like Meg Whitman either I just cant stand Jerry Brown...
|
Quote:
Kevin |
Quote:
As you stated, there's like 20 different maps...guess what, every time we thought we were compromising, giving in to save a little, they changed the shit on us so they could get what they want. There has been no compromise on their end, lotsa lies, and even more harassment by the other side in different forms. Do a search, seek out some old posts on what actually went on in these meetings...you will be shocked, and even more shocked that the whole time this shit was going on you were one of the many who were unaware of how bad we were about to be phooked.... Like I said, no one is pissing in your direction, but we can finally open up about how this whole process was flawed, fixed, and the BRTF was bought and paid from day one... |
This is just plain BS.....the best we can do is comment on the DEIR, then watch them ignore, tap dance around, or half ass address the comments.
|
Quote:
Quote:
first, the emotional legacy of this event alone is enormous. we faced literally, from teh start, a death sentence. so your "compromise" is a bad situation that could have been so much worse. which sounds like a compromise, except there was no "give" on the enviro part. they got to take, take, take. they just didn't take it all. yet. second, you have no understanding of the web of conflicts, compromises, and outright dishonest and illegal activities. look, I spent a ton of time investigating, and there were business partners (schem and anderson) on the BRTF, who sold out their votes to save their asses in MDR. the head of the BRTF was bought and paid for by the monterey bay aquarium via the packard foundation, who also funded the entire mlpa process. there so much more. the group running the show, the RLFF, gets its money from the PF and MBA. and the chair of that group is a colleague of meg caldwell's at stanford. there's a huge, I mean HUUUUUGE freaking web of conflicts. you didn't see school teachers parade in their whole classroom and stand there parroting lines they were given extra credit to recite a bunch of mindless shit. while our ass-kicking kid Clay jumped into the fray like a fighter, stood tall, and kicked the shit outta those bastards. T-Man, you got a great boy there!! and what that asshat wiseman did to your son, man you got some self-restraint!!! you didn't see the mistreatment and outright abuse we suffered while the laguna tuna battalion got to ramble on and on. I could go on... from teh start, it was a decked stacked so much against us. it was supposed to be a simple, get in-get out-get done, deal, steamroll us and move on. but we stood there at the pass of the hot gates, and there weren't even 300 of us. anyways, it ain't about closures, compromises, and science. it's principle. fishing is a right, we've hurt nobody, and we aren't the problem. they put our backs to the wall and lined up the firing squad. the whole process has nothing to do at all with protecting marine species. period. it's a disgusting abuse of power. remember, there was no victory for us. if they did nothing at all, we'd be where we started with, which was all we wanted. we asked for nothing from anybody. simply wanted the dfg to manage the game, which is their job, which is what out license money goes for. period. no matter what happened, we lost. period. that is no compromise. we are no special interest. special interests ask government for favors, money, special privilege. all we want is to be left the hell alone. period. we don't hurt anyone, nobody has been aggrieved by us, nobody has cause for redress. period. we are the victims of a tyrannical government run amock. and we're still gonna fight like hell. I'm sure you don't know any of that, which is fine. go back, read the old posts about what happened. |
From: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1
Jack Baylis to be appointed Fish and Game Commissioner "Fish and Game Commission to hold special meeting on fishing limits By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer Posted: 09/28/2010 06:42:56 PM PDT Updated: 09/28/2010 06:52:34 PM PDT A state commission will hold a special meeting Wednesday to consider extending the public comment period for a controversial plan that could halt or limit fishing in nearly 400 square miles of waters off Southern California. A large area off Point Vicente on the Palos Verdes Peninsula would be affected by the plan, which was developed under the state's Marine Life Protection Act, known as the MLPA. The 11-year-old law, designed in part to protect ocean habitat, prompted a lengthy and closely watched process that last year divided fishing interests and environmentalists over which coastal waters should be designated marine protected areas. The five-member California Fish and Game Commission, which has in recent weeks seen abrupt changes in its makeup, will today at a noon meeting near Sacramento vote on whether to allow another 45 days for comment on a lengthy environmental review of the proposal. A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said late Tuesday that a new appointee - Jack Baylis of Los Angeles - would be announced this morning and would participate in the meeting. Baylis, an executive with global design and engineering firm AECOM, is on the board of the state Coastal Conservancy and is a former board member of nonprofit local advocacy group Heal the Bay. The group pushed for strong local protections - some of which were intensely opposed by South Bay fishermen - during the MLPA process. Commission Deputy Executive Director Adrianna Shea said today's vote comes in response to requests from members of the public who wanted more time to examine a state-required environmental report that is more than 500 pages long. "They're saying it's because it's a large document and they need time to review it. Others are saying it's a stall tactic so a decision won't be made until after the election," Shea said. The report focuses on a compromise plan that was approved last year by the MLPA initiative's Blue Ribbon Task Force. The Fish and Game Commission must certify the review and related regulations before marine protected areas can be created. The report was made available Aug. 18. Comment is currently due Oct. 4, and commission staff expected a vote on the plan by December. If an extension is approved today, comments would be due in mid-November and a commission vote on the landmark marine initiative would not occur until after a new governor is in office following the Nov. 2 election, Shea said. Today's vote comes after a period of uncertainty about the Fish and Game Commission's membership. Last month, Don Benninghoven, a commission appointee who was thought to be sympathetic to environmentalists and who had previously overseen the Blue Ribbon Task Force, was not confirmed to the post by the state Senate. Then, on Sept. 9, Schwarzenegger's office announced a new appointee: Michael Sutsos, a 56-year-old Sonoma resident who is president of a Bay Area hunting club. Sutsos participated in one two-day commission meeting in mid-September. At that time, he voted with the majority to bring the MLPA public comment extension to a vote at today's meeting. On Monday, Sutsos told commission staff that he had been informed his appointment was being withdrawn, Shea said. Schwarzenegger spokesman Matthew Connelly would not say what caused the change in commission makeup. "It didn't work out. It's a personnel matter and I can't really go beyond that," Connelly said. Baylis would have to be confirmed by the state Senate within one year or his appointment would expire, Shea said. If confirmed, Baylis' term would expire in 2016. melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com Find out more What: Fish and Game Commission meeting to consider extending public review of an environmental report on a plan to limit or halt fishing and protect ocean habitat in Southern California. Where: The meeting is in McClellan, Calif. Watch online at cal-span.org. When: Noon today More info: The review document is available at dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/regulatorydocs_sc.asp" |
So with Baylis being appointed, this is a nail on the coffin? Or is there still a chance to get the extention?
|
Quote:
Everything You have said was brought up, and has been exuasted. There was very little comproise on anything. There was some succes to get Hook n Line fishing allowed in La jolla, but it didnt help our Spearfishing friends. They had a certain territory type size and requirments going into the map making process.... Most of the maps your looking at was the bare minimum... And they still pushed for more. Your ill informed, sorry but the MLPA website isnt going to help you all that much. I gave u my # and i sent you a PM i was willign to help explain or answer questions fro you. That offer is still int he table But let me suggest you keep quiet when you go on with other political Jargon, its not apart of the topic. The group of people on this forum and those who fought agaisnt the closures are far from "Tea Party" folks many of them being Democrats. Theres no partisan politics involved in out side of this process. So leave that in the shitter. Alot of guys took time away from there famlies, there vacation time from work, and more to show up at a multiple meetings from San Diego to LA and inbetween... for 15 secounds of speaking time at a public comment. Only to find out the public comments were almost largely a front for "transparency" may of these folks were at these meetings all day long. Do you know the owners of this very site make a good deal of money of kayakfishing... some of these closures potentially could have really hurt there buisness. They arent the only ones either... Like I said some folks are Quite bitter about it. You werent there you werent involved. So keep your trap shut This group of folks Raises every year over 10K or more for Cancer or a families in need. Thats just 1 tournament. Ask all the Questions you have about the MLPa. But Give this comunity a little more respect. Youll get a a more friendly response. |
Hey i was only stating a fact which is true. I put no partisan Endorsement on my post... Thats the part where you came in touting your "Tea Party" Acusations... And your Post about Muslim or Mexicans was highly Racist. Not sure where that came from.
If you read the origional post of this thread it talked about the Governors influence on the MLPA process, so naturally talking about the Governors Race and its canidates makes sense. Considering things could change extremely. I gave a critical opions on both of them. And I made the closing point of that when i said the next governor has and will have more important issues than the MLPA to worry about. So putting our chips in that direction isnt going to do us much good., And I told you, Id be willing to explain the problems with the maps for you. I sent you a PM and a phone number. so we could spare this thread the posting stress. Quote:
Why dont you tell us where your comming from. Since you clearly cant comprehend our side of the issue. . What facts do you bring to the table to support the MLPA closures and the current Maps selections. What Science do you have to back up your opinion. And Lets here your Ideas. You havent Asked 1 question, all youve done is talk shit. And for the record. If venting and ranting got us a free soda from Burger King, Itd be alot more than what we got from having an "inteligent Dialect" and "reaching across the Isle" or what you call "reasonable compromise" ever got us in this process So lets hear it. Why are the MLPA maps to you a good compromise? dont be shy. |
Stan, since your new you are going to get a pass...
I have been dealing mainly with my sons cancer this last year and havent had the opportunity to go to many meetings.I did make it to the one in Ontario at the Doubletree and got to meet many of you there.I can say that Kayak fisherman and Spearos were about 90% of the turnout for our side.No one really representing sportboat landings that I meet(who have a monetary stake in this)none of the Newport Lobster fleet(who will lose Laguna)just a few other fisherman. You are literally speaking DIRECTLY to the ones fighting the fight for fisherman right here.A very clean fight too I might add.So thats a little something for you to chew on before you go any further. To my brothers in arms :cheers1: We will raise up our glasses against evil forces... |
Stan, why be so combative? Obviously, your views are not those of just about everyone on this forum. It's time to let this one die on the vine. You are not going to convert anyone here.
This is a very sensitive topic for everyone on this forum. There are other means of fostering 'conservation' that don't involve restricting access. We've been advocating this from day one. There is a reason we have a department of fish and game and regulations. This is simply a land grab by the other side. As was stated before, you are new here but don't make the rookie mistake off stepping in this one. Many here have devoted a tremendous amount of time, money, lost wages, etc. to the cause. |
What the F...seems like the enviros are hunting and fishing around this board AGAIN with this stan man and bmercury login names :the_finger:
|
If you weren't at the meetings and involved with the process, it's hard to explain how the BRTF changed the rules, or tried to change the rules, when it didn't suit them. How one side was admonished for being threatening and uncompromising for wearing one color shirt, only to see the other side wear the same color shirts at future meetings, and nothing was said. How new closures were all of a sudden added on to existing maps.
We went to these meetings in good faith, offering our input, hoping that the public would be heard. Unfortunately, these meetings had a predetermined goal and we were virtually ignored. This is all politics, with little or no science involved, as far as I can see. You can see that with the governor's dismissal of a DFG commissioner who committed the sin of wanting more time for a 548 page document to be studied. I'm sure the new commissioner who was appointed today will vote for no extension. His background indicates he will. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
everything you need to know is that when sustos asked some questions based on science, and simply wanted more time to review the document, he was fired. we don't have any species in danger.
truth is the mpa's won't help fisheries at all. there is no science to back it up. the only evidence offered was mpa's in other countries which a) were never managed at all in the first place and b) suffered from the tragedy of the commons. now, I teach economics in high school and college (well, did in college before the budget axe!!). any economist will tell you that when you make a resource off limits, you effectively make its value zero. in other words, it has no value, and is worthless. what this means is that there is no reason or incentive to protect or preserve or in any other way take care of the resource. so expect the polluting of those areas to increase. why? well, the water has no value, and polluting it cannot lessen the value in any way. period. the other problem any economist will tell you is that in closing those areas, you create an economic drain. maintenance and protection require vast effort, and will always be a losing proposition. since you can't utilize the resource, it offers no benefit. as for the mpa's working, well, they don't. there is no evidence of the "spillover effect". it won't benefit pelagics obviously as they migrate through. as for residents, like calico bass, there is something called carrying capacity. and when any area in particular reaches it, populations won't keep growing and expending. besides, what they closed off or wanted to close off) were particularly (well, except in PV) good habitat areas so there's simply not the habitat to support expansion on the periphery. and, do you think the sport boats won't have those gps coords plugged in? you think they're not going to sit on the edges and pick off any spillover bass? please. what fools those people are!! see also the DFG artificial reef program. the problems that the coast and the coastal fishery faces - over-development, runoff, pollution, erosion, et al. - are not and cannot be addressed by the mlpa. go ahead and read the bill. I did. there's nothing in there which addresses those problems as a whole, which (pollution for instance) will "spill over" from non-mpa's into mpa's. so the fundamental issue isn't addressed. but, there's a catch: the burden on the localities to maintain, and worse, the requirements: "the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state." also "Marine life reserves shall be designed, to the extent practicable, to ensure that activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area are avoided." which means that it's going to hit local areas very hard. that's a huge economic impact which was NEVER considered. which by the way, was addressed somewhat at the F&G meeting in march. the local city gov'ts are scared. which is another problem in economics, the infrastructure problem. pols love building bridges - jobs, fancy signs, even get to name them in west virginia!! - but afterwards, the upkeep gets to be enormously expensive. and it'll be a drain on california's, and the local's, economies for a looooong time. and the unforeseen consequences, the loss of fishing, etc., and the impact on jobs, hell, all of south SaMo bay cities lobbied hard to keep rocky point open. yo uthink it was all abotu fishing? please. and this: To ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines. none exist. DFG wardens already said they can't. and this: An identification of select species or groups of species likely to benefit from MPAs, and the extent of their marine habitat, with special attention to marine breeding and spawning grounds, and available information on oceanographic features, such as current patterns, upwelling zones, and other factors that significantly affect the distribution of those fish or shellfish and their larvae. none of this was part of the process. it was about closures, but no mention of species was presented. The department shall establish a process for external peer review of the scientific basis for the master plan prepared pursuant to Section 2855. never happened. the mlpa violated the law also as it the SAT didn't have the required members (A)Staff from the department, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board, to be designated by each of those departments. (C) One member, appointed from a list prepared by Sea Grant marine advisers, who shall have direct expertise with ocean habitat and sea life in California marine waters. A and C were not part of the South Coast but WERE part of the Central Coast. Their absence cannot be simply an oversight. It is a clear violation of the law. The entire outcome is therefore null and void. damn sure if it was reversed, the enviros would be screaming bloody f***ing hell on this one. I've said enough. just please know this, when fishermen take the position that "it's not that bad", or "we need some closures", etc., a) there's alot of people here that gave everything they had and then some to keep it "not that bad" and b) you're aiding groups that want to shut fishing down completely. I know alot of the guys here, mostly from the meetings and what not, and you won't find a better group of people anywhere. to have happen to them what happened is a crime. period. take it or leave it. I'll stake my camp with the guys I fought with. |
Quote:
Take a hike buddy, Conservation could have been done in other ways, lowering fishing limits, or increasing slot sizes. Not closing down the sections of the ocean to no fishing in general. Fish have tails my friend. Soem of those "kelp Species" can swim a couple miles or more a day. Thats the point buddy. There is no logical Science behind this MLPA process. alot of the science used in this process had alot of hole in it. There is no threatened fish species along our coast. Do you know where the 9th circuit court of apeals is? I could have been clearly speaking amongst other things. I said nothing about Prop 8. And it has no buisness in this thread. You brought it up. When a Gorilla comes to you door and grabs your lunch bag, lets see you have a "Reasonable conversation"... Your clearly some sorta Latte Lifting Enviormetal Lefty. Or some guy just looking to flex his internet testosterone. or both rather. So spare everyone here the headache and the time and get lost. :the_finger: I was more than willing to answer your questions. And still am if your willing to man up and talk like a big boy.:biggrinjester: |
Damn Stan,
I wish you were here a year or so ago... could have saved me a bunch of time, money and frustration... I'm officially on Stans side now. He went from being ignorant about the MLPA issue to an expert in less than 24 hours... I have been mislead by Paul, Chris, Grego, Billy, Tyler, Zenspearo, etc. etc. oh also Clay and his gaffing dad I want a few hundred hours and few hundred dollars back... Rob your the economics professor, figure it out, who do I send the bill to? I hate being mislead...:the_finger: |
Quote:
Science 15 February 2002: Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1233 - 1235 DOI: 10.1126/science.295.5558.1233b Prev | Table of Contents | Next Letters Marine Reserves and Fisheries Management In their report "Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries" (30 Nov., p. 1920), C. M. Roberts and co-authors present data indicating that fishery yields have increased in waters adjacent to marine reserves in St. Lucia and east Florida. In many developing island nations like St. Lucia in the Caribbean, fisheries are seriously overexploited, and little or no fisheries management exists. In such cases where marine reserves are the primary means of control of fishing effort and catch, they can result in increased yields compared with a no-management scenario. However, the St. Lucia example is specific to coral reef fisheries and does not prove the global utility of reserves to fisheries. In contrast to St. Lucia, the recreational fisheries in east Florida are stringently regulated. Currently, the bag limit for red drum is one fish per person, with a slot limit of 18 to 27 inches (~46 to 69 centimeters) long (1). What effect have these regulations had on sizes of red and black drum along the entire east coast of Florida? According to the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, the mean weight of red drum and black drum in east Florida has more than doubled since the 1980s (2). Although the reserves in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge examined by Roberts et al. reportedly have provided trophy-size fish to a limited area outside their boundaries, "traditional" fisheries management has resulted in size increases across the entire fishery. Furthermore, it is estimated that 80 to 90% of reserves have not succeeded in meeting their management objectives, even in coral reef systems (3). Before implementing new reserves, it would be wise to ask whether a reserve is the best strategy for managing a particular fishery, and how might current reserves be better managed so that they attain their fishery goals. Mark H. Tupper University of Guam Marine Laboratory, UOG Station, Mangilao, GU 96923, USA. E-mail: mtupper{at}guam.uog.edu References and Notes 1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Red Drum Management Plan (Specific Authority Art. IV, Sec. 9, Florida Constitution, chaps. 83-134, Laws of Florida, amended 1991). 2. Data were queried from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey available at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreatio...ies/index.html 3. G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, S. Wells, A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1995); J. Alder, Coastal Manage. 24, 97 (1996); T. McClanahan, Coral Reefs 18, 321 (1999). The study by C. M. Roberts and colleagues seems little more than a promotional tool for proposed no fishing zones styled as marine reserves. The authors conclude that marine reserves off the southwest coast of St. Lucia and the east coast of Florida have enhanced adjacent fisheries, but such a conclusion is overreaching, given the data they present. In the latter case, for example, Roberts et al. examined data from the two reserve zones in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge at Cape Canaveral. They conducted seine samples and report that they found more and bigger fish inside the area than outside where fishing was allowed. The study is presented as if the research were current, but no true dates are given for the seining. In fact, the seine samples go back to 1987-89 (1), a period when the fished waters were subjected to wanton commercial gill netting at its peak. In 1995, a Florida constitutional amendment finally banned the gill nets. This reform accompanied numerous new limits on recreational fishing. As a consequence, fish stocks have skyrocketed in the same fished area, as demonstrated in young-fish research projects by the state. So, all that Roberts et al. have shown is that when commercial pressures are curtailed, fish stocks thrive. The authors bolster their conclusions about the Cape Canaveral marine reserves by listing a number of recreational fishing records supposedly set because of big fish migrating out of the reserves. However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat. In addition, there was a spurt of records along Florida's east coast, largely as the result of line-class categories created by the International Game Fish Association, as well as $1000 awards paid by a line manufacturer. Importantly, many records were set in areas far removed from the reserve areas, including Mosquito Lagoon waters that are separated by land from them. The real cause of perceived problems in fisheries management is the commercial take-for-profit. There is no justification for banning family-level angling, which is allowed in Yellowstone and Everglades national parks and other fragile areas. Good management does not require draconian prohibitions. Karl Wickstrom* Florida Sportsman Magazine, 2700 South Kanner Highway, Stuart, FL 34994, USA. E-mail: karl{at}floridasportsman.com *Founder and Editor-in-Chief References and notes 1. D. R. Johnson, N. A. Funicelli, J. A. Bohnsack, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19, 436 (1999). The conclusions by C. M. Roberts and colleagues that the effects of the Soufri`ere Marine Management Area (SMMA) extended beyond its boundaries and that commercial fish yields were increased because of the marine reserve are weak, for two reasons. First, there were no controls in the study and thus there can be no strong evidence for an effect of the experimental treatment. Second, the increase in abundance and catch outside the reserve was far too rapid to have been due to a buildup of a spawning population inside the reserve and export of eggs and larvae. Regarding the second point, proponents of marine protected areas argue that spawning stock will build up inside reserves and eggs, larvae, and juveniles will then be exported to areas outside the reserves. For this chain of events to happen and for the exported eggs and larvae to grow to sufficient size for fishing would require time. Yet Roberts et al. report that the abundance outside the SMMA increased immediately after its establishment, despite the fact that fishing effort and catch increased outside the reserve. The rapid increase in abundance outside the SMMA could not have been due to increases in spawning stock inside. Alternative explanations for the data include an environmental change, as Roberts et al. suggest, or the effect of the experiment, which involved not only the establishment of the protected area, but "daily patrols by wardens," heightened public awareness, and other factors that could have contributed to improved compliance with existing regulations. Ray Hilborn School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. E-mail: rayh{at}u.washington.edu You seem to be a master of the ad hominem attack (e.g. people who might disagree with you are racist, islamaphobic, too stupid too understand the MLPA because they are economists), so I'm awaiting your slander. Perhaps the font I used is sexist? :rolleyes: |
a few things, and I will end this.
as for the economists and houses, mostly it was policy, not economists. some argued for creating a housing bubble, but policy did it. I'd explain, but you're better off reading Tom Woods or Bob Murphy. As for the mpa's, of course if you don't fish an area it's fish populations will increase. that's freaking obvious. don't fish at all, yes, there'll be more fish. but will we get a spillover effect with bass, rock fish, etc.? we simply don't know. we have mpa's already and there's not been documented evidence, in california, on california species. truth is the science wasn't settled. eco-tourism will not benefit at all from mpa's. there's nothing gonna suddenly appear in five years that isn't there now. that's a moot point. the LJ caves are there and visited. mpa's won't help that. people paddle off the coast on paddleboards and kayaks and what not already. eco-tourism in california is like the whale watching trips. they aren't going to be affected, either way. and yo apparently missed the "undisturbed and unpolluted state" part. eco-tourism would disturb. and it'd be such a small addition which would be far surpassed by all the loss and extra cost. as for the mpa's addressing other issues, if it falls on local agencies, they're flat broke. if it falls on the state agencies, they're flat broke too. and it leaves too much wiggle room, cf. "to the extent possible". and the mlpa was specifically about closing areas to fishing. period. it's more than buoys. you're going to create a nightmare of enforcement, unless you want civilian patrols, neighbor turning in neighbor, citizen turning into enviro-police. welcome to the soviet union. and no, that's not hyperbole. all along, the obvious solution was management. look at what fishermen have done with the white sea bass (not that I'd know, but that's my poor fishing skills!) fishery. or how we've handled the black sea bass. put slot limits, take limits, do C&R, all that. we're fine with that, and will absolutely support that 110%. do you honestly think that the closure people really are concerned with your fishing? do you think they want healthy sustainable fishing? if you do, then you're fooling yourself. I'd use worse, but I'll leave that to your imagination. the closures were never about any of that, and if you were there, if you went through what we went through, you'd know it. you'd know the malfeasance of the brtf and the hearings. you'd know what the "other side" tried to pull, and even still, was able to get away with. you'd know how the rules (i.e. persistent kelp) were changed, altered, rewritten, etc. you'd know of the behind door dealings on maps (illegal by the way). you'd know how science was specifically thrown out, ignored, or in other cases, modified. but you weren't, and you don't. there's not a single guy here who doesn't want healthy fish populations, doesn't want to see well managed fisheries. not a single guy here isn't in touch, literally, with water quality and it's impact. not a single guy here doesn't want to work hand in hand with the dfg to manage game, nail poachers, and stop the vast over harvesting by some commercial fishing. oh, and the fact that we were lumped with the commercial fishing, that's another thing. but the bottom line is still principle. it was an egregious act of abuse by government, taking away livelihoods from some, liberty from all. in any other venue, the newspapers woulda been all over this like stink on shit. it woulda been front page news. but it wasn't even mentioned. it was top to bottom a corrupt, dishonest, and disgusting process, an abuse of power by a government set against its citizens. but you don't know that, or don't care to know. if our fisheries were in peril, that'd be one thing. but they're not. and what is affecting them is far removed from 3 miles of coastline in malibu or la jolla and can't be corrected by closing them off. and we know they'll be back. the mpa's slated won't solve the problem, and we know that more is coming. we know what they want, what the money is trying to buy, and what the goal is. healthy fishing isn't their goal. no fishing at all is. I will fight them as long as I have breath in my lungs. |
Stan reminds me of the internet fisherman,you know,the guy thats just starting out and catches a fish on a wide open bite,then the very next day has all the answers and experiences it takes to become a good fisherman. :rolleyes:
|
It's not in my nature to stay silent about things that I care about but that is exactly what I am going to do here. Rob's last post pretty much covers things. Well done.
I just have one question for Stan. For a guy who claims to be new to all of this, he seems pretty passionate about his point of view. That is unusual from a newbie. Could Stan actually be a seasoned agent from the other camp out trying to steal some souls? It's possible. If that is your game Stan, I don't think you will find many in this community willing to take a bite of your poison. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Most of us just don't agree with yours. Bob |
Turns out that they gave the public another 15 days, but that's because that's the amount of time DFG calculates will be sufficient for them to finish cramming this Socal closure down our throat by their magic Dec. 15 deadline. Any longer and they will miss the "deadline" (guess those who have the gold makes the rules, and the pro-closure people know who pay their salary so they are scrambling to make that artificial deadline).
In contrast, the DEIR process for lesser CEQA projects (less complex and smaller sizes) have run 90, 120 days. But they are going to cram it down our throat on this one. So in the end, the shenanigan landed them a FG&C Commissioner who's an enviro insider and they throw the public a 15-day bone. I predict they are going to try to push for more closures now with the new closurephile Commissioner on board. How much you want to bet elements of Map 3 and External C is going to be pushed in these last two FG&C meetings in October and December? They are going to try to slide in as much as they can now that they have the FG&C voting rigged. We are now back to fighting for the survival of our sports. To the troll: These guys are nice, trust me. You definitely got a pass here on this board. Try some of your troll on spearboard and see how long you'll last before you get a firm kick in the nuts and a permanent ban. :the_finger: I happen to know the mod over there and he can be an a$$hole ;) |
Arnold wants to push this through before he is out of office. I regret my vote for him more than any vote of my lifetime. Hopefully the courts will throw this back in his face.
|
Quote:
Bob |
Quote:
You appear to be a surf fisherman? Nice corbie and leo from your previous posts. http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...0/0b292945.jpg http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...P7050015-1.jpg What beaches did you catch them on? Are they special beaches to you? Good memories there? Nice variety of fish? Have you seen whether those beaches are affected by the proposed MPA's? That would suck for you if they were closed, no? You ever shore fish any other areas? Laguna Beach up in the OC? I fish there pretty frequently. Its awesome up there. A couple of reasons why I love it there 1- I've Never been dealt the Helmet, even if I only swing by for a quick 10 min lunch session. 2- Cool variety of fish- You never know what could be on the end of your line 3- Awesome coastline. 4- My wife caught her first surf fish there 5- Its got good family friendly beaches that I can bring my wife and daughter to, and spend a few minutes surf fishing. Laguna is very special to me for many reasons. Unfortunately, if you've never been up to fish @ Laguna, you better do it quickly. It's on the chopping block. Which part? The whole part. Based off of what scientific data? A few old ladies that go swimming and claim that they are seeing less fish there than they did in the 80's. You asked for specific reasons- That is just one. There are plenty of guys that have their favorite fishing spot, especially kayak accessible spots, on the chopping block through this whole process. I think the frustration you are seeing is that the guys that were involved in the process from early on, saw how little the input from the public really mattered, and that there were other intentions that were driving the process. If those beaches that you caught your Corbie and PB Leopard on were in danger of being put on the "No Fishing" list, would you speak up to fight for them Stan? If you actually spoke up to save them, and then found out what you care about doesn't really matter to those running this process, would that frustrate you? I'm seriously asking those last two questions and would like your honest answer Stan, not just hypothetically throwing them out there to prove a point. And for the record- Steveooo in IN on this thread before it gets locked :the_finger: |
non-mlpa economics interlude-------
politicians make policy. it was politicians that wanted to subsidize housing, fed chairmen that flooded the markets with money and artificially lowered interest rates, politicians that forced lenders (CRA) to make bad loans, etc. I'd go on, but read tom woods and bob murphy for starters. i'll admit that from mankiw to krugman, they got it all wrong. I'm a libertarian. student of austrian economics. also, I despise both parties equally. ------- you remind me of aristophanes' play, the clouds. or perhaps Plato's Gorgias. are you playing Thrasymachus? on a side note, this is an awesome site, filled up with a bunch of great guys who love to help out others with kayak fishing. it's an invaluable resource and you're gonna meet lots of guys here on the water. and you'll learn a ton from them. but I'm kinda thinking you might not find it so. I'd advise you to change your screen name and kinda leave the mlpa stuff alone. you don't know, and you don't know what you don't know. i'm out. got better things to do than feed trolls. to my brothers down south :you_rock::you_rock::you_rock::cheers1::cheers1::c heers1: |
Quote:
Had you been there, maybe you were, he did not argue with anyone, he made valid points on his own. You misinterpreted the post that was made and it did sound like you were implying that my Son argued with elders (a teacher, albeit a misguided one at that). If anything, the only disrespect shown was by Ken Wiseman towards my Son, but I did have a talk with Ken after the 'extensive public input' session. Or maybe you were at the smurfrider meeting in Encinitas who again insulted a youngster for speaking up for what he believes in. Funny how a ton of people spoke up for what they believe in, only to get chided by you for their views. Question for you though Stan...at one of the meetings, I asked the BRTF members directly why it was never considered creating an artificial reef to increase our 'declining' fish population, and was told that there was not a guarantee it would work. How do you know if you don't try? Sure seems the one off San O turned out nice. So, based on your rants, are you saying that a reef should not be considered, and the only way to increase the population is to go to drastics measures before any other thought is taken into consideration? Did like one of your comments though...you know, this one... Quote:
Maybe I'll run into ya at Torrey Pines some day... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In fact "the fishing magazine writer" addresses the point you accuse him of ignoring, directly: "However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat." Which illustrates one of the biggest flaws of the study. No controls. Quote:
Quote:
The whole point is more fish, right? Not an equal number of bigger fish (that will then be caught outside the MPA). Quote:
|
http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/...ffolo/STAN.jpg
:biggrinjester: Look what I got! :biggrinjester: Hello Sir nice to meet ya. Nice to see someone fishing dressed in there sunday Best! See thats the fundamental differances here. And those folks Rob, Dsafety and even Steveo summed it up best. You know Stan, The constitution Doesnt say that i have a right to fish. But shutting down large secions of the California coast to fishing is just flat out wrong. I took my first girlfriend up to the Dana point headlands, Now its going to be a Hotel. But I aint against Developement. I grew up in Dana point, I fished up and down the coast of Laguna. I live only 20 minutes up the coast. And I still miss my home. That Coastline that some of you Enviormental folks seem to know so much about. all those red areas on a map, Landmarks and Gps cordinates. They may just be that to you. But those places, They are All that I am... The MLPA process doesnt hurt the big sportboats, or the commercial fleets, the guys taking all the fish. Its hurting the local kayak fishign comunity, they peopel who take less than 1% of fish in comparrison to the rest... Were the ones getting a shaft. Stan you dont know who your talking to here. The people in this community pick up trash when out on the water, they fish man powered crafts. They are not keeping mass Quanities of fish, not even the full limits. They enjoy the sport becuase it puts them in touch with the enviorment. Anyone could get a loan for some Fancy Lefty Marine Biologist Degree, where they teach you that Science is proving logic wrong And that just becuase fish have tales doesnt mean they wont swim out of the Reserves, And that if you take a sentence move the words around it could mean what they want it to mean and whatever. The people in This community are made up of Tax payers. Mothers and Fathers. Hard working Americans, and outdoor enthusist. What you dont udnerstand is that those who take from the Enviorment could tell you alot about it. Fisherman have Infinately more knowlege about the Ocean than some professor in a classroom. When you love something, you put your whole heart it in, and try to learn everything about it. In fact Im doing a study right now on California Halibut Diets. And what they eat during certain times of the year, and what they are feeding on in certain Enviorments, i personally think they eat more than the bait we use to catch them with. Yeah I was college myself, most folks here know im a pretty young guy for this crowd. But i know what they teach you "marine Biologist" I took a good deal of classes myself. And a good lot of it is Horse shit. What this MLPA has done. Is it has damaged the the relationships between the state and the fisherman. In other states, Fisherman and the DFG work hand in hand to help manage the enviorment. Fisherman take form the Enviorment so as a whole they know whats going on. And they have the most to lose from its mis management. Now the DFG survey folks cant get an honest anwser to questions about what they caught anymore., becuase folks think that info could be used in the MLPA proces to guide the state on where to close? The fisherman dont trust state anymore. You came on here looking for a fight. and you got one. Pick apart any anyones posting all you want. You arent going to Sway any minds here. So take a Hike. God forbid I ever see a sunday school dressed guy out there surf fishing. I might think its you. |
Quote:
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.... Clear enough for you genius? I think I remember you. Are you the guy at the Long Beach MLPA meeting who said he was a kayak fishing guide and then insulted all kayak fishermen as being incompetent and stupid on the water? I really like the game you played here. Starting with... "what's wrong with a little closure? Seriously, please explain it to me.." going from that to quoting obscure scientific studies and insulting some great guys. Freedom and liberty are the bottom line here. The freedom to put the kids in the car and go down to our favorite spot to go fishing. The freedom to drive along the coastline with a kayak in the back looking for a new spot to launch from and fish. These freedoms are going to be gone if we don't do something. And when that freedom is gone, it's gone forever. Lost freedoms only return by the spilling of blood. That's why we talk about this fight in battle terms. To the rest of the guys on this board... :cheers1: |
Stan. What fisheries are in trouble right now? Specifically in the Southern Section of the MLPA (were the folks on this froum fish)
Im interested to hear what information you have. :biggrinjester: |
This is the reason I don't answer questions about using the sonar and what types of knots to use :biggrinjester:.
To my MLPA fighting blood brothers, united we stand! :cheers1: <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________ http://www.bigwatersedge.com/images/...wcw-2007-1.gif <!-- / sig --> |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 2002 Big Water's Edge. All rights reserved.