Laguna Beach MLPA Workshop Report - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Holy Mackerel · 07-02-2009, 07:33 AM

First, thanks to everyone who attended the Laguna meeting!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakersFan

I ended up driving home with the big question mark in my head as to how any of this can possibly be enforced.

I saw this quote on spearboard...

Quote:

I attended the MLPA road show in SD last night and asked the logical question of who was going to pay for the policing of the new closures. Clearly fishers were not going to fund a system that treats them like second class citizens. I was told to solve this problem there are plans in the works for private security officers employed by environmental groups to monitor/patrol/enforce the closures. These private security officers will be deputised and have full authority to enforce the MLPA rules. I don't have an offical word on this but this is what I was told.

This is a scary thought!! For everyone reading this, please see this post by Tyler.

CLICK HERE

Matt · 07-02-2009, 08:18 AM

Wasn't there just a huge stink in some far off sandy place about "contractors" and there interpretation of "law"? I also cannot imagine the zealotry that some of these "private security force personnel" may have towards there possible "offenders". Not sure what laws that may infringe upon and I am personally not finding the hiring of "guards" acceptable at all......we may want to pursue this issue or at least keep on top of it!

On the brightside I always somewhat enjoyed the idea of becoming a PIRATE!!!haha

AND I KNOW THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT.........HOW IN THE HELL IS PRIVATE FUNDING LEGITIMATELY TAKING PLACE IN A PUBLIC (meaning the state of CA.) PROCESS??????????? HOW IS IT LEGAL??? AND WHEN ARE WE AS A PRIVATE GROUP GOING TO STRIKE BACK VIA LEGAL MEANS??????? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE NOT ENTERED A LEGAL PROCESS TO GET AN INJUNCTION TO STOP WHAT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY SOME SORT OF VIOLATION UPON CITIZENS OF BOTH CA. AND THE U.S.A???? I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT COME ON THERE HAS GOT TO BE SOME LAW OR LAWS THAT THE MLPA PROCESS IS IN VIOLATION OF IN IT'S CURRENT FORM??? AND NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYING A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY??? THERE IS NO WAY THAT CAN BE LEGAL OR IS IT? IF THEY OWNED THAT SECTION OF OCEAN I COULD UNDERSTAND THEM BEING ABLE TO HIRE A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE BUT ON PUBLIC LAND/OCEAN????? WTF???

SORRY FOR THE BULLYING TACTIC ABOUT TO HAPPEN HERE......BUT WHEN, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STEP UP AND FIGHT THIS THE PROPER WAY? THIS HAS GOT TO BE STOPPED PEOPLE IT IS TIME TO STEP UP AND STAND UP FOR WHAT IS LEGALLY OURS AND WITHIN OUR OWN RIGHTS TO PROTECT!!! AND NO I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANY VIOLENCE, BUT WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND LEGALLY AND MAKE SURE WE ARE REPRESENTED PROPERLY TO PROTECT WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS, TO ME THIS SEEMS VERY SIMILAR TO CHURCH AND STATE BEING SEPERATED, THE CONSERVATION GROUPS ARE CLEARLY, CLEARLY INFLUENCING THEIR OWN AGENDA UPON PUBLILC DOMAIN AND THE PEOPLE SETTING THE MPA'S NEED TO REMAIN IMPARTIAL AND COME UP WITH A FAIR AND HONEST PROCESS IN ORDER FOR THIS ALL TO BE VALID. BUT THIS IS VERY CLEARLY SOMEONE'S PRIVATE AGENDA THAT IS MEANT TO STOP FISHING BECAUSE SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP CLEARLY BELIEVES IT IS IMMORAL OR WRONG, HENCE THE CHURCH AND STATE REFERENCE. IMPOSING YOUR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SAME VALUES IS CLEARLY A STEP TOWARDS A VIOLATION IN CIVIL RIGHTS.

T-Rex · 07-02-2009, 08:37 AM

I was a little surprised but should have expected the underlying bias at last night's meeting. When checking in at the first information table, it was politely explained to me that "the first four proposals (Lapis 1, Lapis 2, Opal & Topaz) were developed by a coalition of concerned stakeholders including recreational & commercial fishermen, kayakers, divers and others concerned with protecting the environment. And the last two proposals (External A & External B) were developed by outside organizations based on their own vested interest."

It seemed like there was a good turnout by fishermen and spearos since Externals A & B were getting the most attention. Both reps did a great job in explaining their proposals.

07-02-2009, 08:18 AM	#2
Matt Support your local pangas Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lj Posts: 976	Wasn't there just a huge stink in some far off sandy place about "contractors" and there interpretation of "law"? I also cannot imagine the zealotry that some of these "private security force personnel" may have towards there possible "offenders". Not sure what laws that may infringe upon and I am personally not finding the hiring of "guards" acceptable at all......we may want to pursue this issue or at least keep on top of it! On the brightside I always somewhat enjoyed the idea of becoming a PIRATE!!!haha AND I KNOW THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT.........HOW IN THE HELL IS PRIVATE FUNDING LEGITIMATELY TAKING PLACE IN A PUBLIC (meaning the state of CA.) PROCESS??????????? HOW IS IT LEGAL??? AND WHEN ARE WE AS A PRIVATE GROUP GOING TO STRIKE BACK VIA LEGAL MEANS??????? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE NOT ENTERED A LEGAL PROCESS TO GET AN INJUNCTION TO STOP WHAT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY SOME SORT OF VIOLATION UPON CITIZENS OF BOTH CA. AND THE U.S.A???? I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT COME ON THERE HAS GOT TO BE SOME LAW OR LAWS THAT THE MLPA PROCESS IS IN VIOLATION OF IN IT'S CURRENT FORM??? AND NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYING A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY??? THERE IS NO WAY THAT CAN BE LEGAL OR IS IT? IF THEY OWNED THAT SECTION OF OCEAN I COULD UNDERSTAND THEM BEING ABLE TO HIRE A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE BUT ON PUBLIC LAND/OCEAN????? WTF??? SORRY FOR THE BULLYING TACTIC ABOUT TO HAPPEN HERE......BUT WHEN, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STEP UP AND FIGHT THIS THE PROPER WAY? THIS HAS GOT TO BE STOPPED PEOPLE IT IS TIME TO STEP UP AND STAND UP FOR WHAT IS LEGALLY OURS AND WITHIN OUR OWN RIGHTS TO PROTECT!!! AND NO I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANY VIOLENCE, BUT WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND LEGALLY AND MAKE SURE WE ARE REPRESENTED PROPERLY TO PROTECT WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS, TO ME THIS SEEMS VERY SIMILAR TO CHURCH AND STATE BEING SEPERATED, THE CONSERVATION GROUPS ARE CLEARLY, CLEARLY INFLUENCING THEIR OWN AGENDA UPON PUBLILC DOMAIN AND THE PEOPLE SETTING THE MPA'S NEED TO REMAIN IMPARTIAL AND COME UP WITH A FAIR AND HONEST PROCESS IN ORDER FOR THIS ALL TO BE VALID. BUT THIS IS VERY CLEARLY SOMEONE'S PRIVATE AGENDA THAT IS MEANT TO STOP FISHING BECAUSE SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP CLEARLY BELIEVES IT IS IMMORAL OR WRONG, HENCE THE CHURCH AND STATE REFERENCE. IMPOSING YOUR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SAME VALUES IS CLEARLY A STEP TOWARDS A VIOLATION IN CIVIL RIGHTS. __________________ Thanks Matt F. Last edited by Matt; 07-02-2009 at 08:38 AM.

07-02-2009, 08:37 AM	#3
T-Rex Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Rancho Santa Margarita Posts: 770	I was a little surprised but should have expected the underlying bias at last night's meeting. When checking in at the first information table, it was politely explained to me that "the first four proposals (Lapis 1, Lapis 2, Opal & Topaz) were developed by a coalition of concerned stakeholders including recreational & commercial fishermen, kayakers, divers and others concerned with protecting the environment. And the last two proposals (External A & External B) were developed by outside organizations based on their own vested interest." It seemed like there was a good turnout by fishermen and spearos since Externals A & B were getting the most attention. Both reps did a great job in explaining their proposals. Last edited by T-Rex; 07-02-2009 at 02:33 PM.

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