|
This is a tough one. Before the funding set-asides were pointed out, I thought that this proposition was s rare example of something reasonable being put forward as a proposition. Now I am not so sure.
According to the voter's guide, the DFG would get about $35 million of the estimated $500 million the fees would generate. This is just about what some estimate the DFG will need to enforce the MLPA closures.
What is not clear to me is if this money will be additional funding for the DFG or replacement of other funding which will be withdrawn by the State. I will try to find out.
The fees will also provide about $20 million to the Ocean Protection Council. I have never heard of this organization. Are they friends or foes?
In 2009 the DFG had a total budget of about $462 million. They used about $68 million of that for law enforcement. Another 51MM went to something called "Management of Lands and Facilities". $72MM went to "Hunting & Fishing Public Use" I am not sure what the non-law enforcement activities are but my guess is that either or both of these could reach out and get involved with MLPA enforcement.
We have been told that the DFG does not have enough funding today to properly enforce the laws which currently exist. A $35MM shot in the arm would certainly enhance their enforcement capabilities, if, (and this is a big if), this funding was additional funding and that it was applied to their enforcement efforts. If funding reductions from other sources produce no net gain, than I don't see how the passage of this proposition can work against our cause. It is also possible that the DFG could use any additional funding for other activities not related to enforcement.
Speaking just for myself, I have to say that I do not yet know enough about this subject to form an opinion on whether Prop 21 is a good or bad thing. I will try to find out more and post anything interesting that I find.
Thanks Walrus for pointing this stuff out.
Bob
|