Reports From the Bridge

Dear Fishermen

I am republishing several comments and articles on the resent MLP voteplease read them all.  Your comments are welcome.                                                                                         Please don’t take this sitting down. Complaining on this forum is great but remember you are preaching to the quire hear . Make your voices heard in the Mainstream media and to the elected officials in Sacramento and Washington.

Lets go get them

Irv

 From S A C

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On December 15, 2010, the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) voted (3 to 2) to create a series of Marine Protected Areas along the South Coast.  The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) presented an eight page document to the Commission on behalf of SAC and the member parties to the PSO.  The document contained factual critical flaws with the process, setting the foundation for future legal action.  The PSO will continue to strive to come to a reasonable and appropriate resolution of this matter.

There will be some substantial changes in the near future which will potentially affect the MLPA path.  These include a new state governor and the replacement of member(s) on the Commission.  We will keep you informed as to the progress on this matter.  Our compliments to the fishermen who took the time to attend the meeting.

By JIM MATTHEWS

The state Fish and Game Commission adopted sweeping closures of ocean waters off the Southern California coast, eliminating sportfishing and most other uses in these areas in a vote on Wednesday in Santa Barbara. In adopting the regulations, mandated as part of the Marine Line Protection Act (MLPA), three words come immediately to mind about the process:

Corrupt, unfunded, and unnecessary.

The process has been flawed from the beginning.

First, there is massive conflict of interest that should disqualify two of the commissioners from voting: Commissioner Michael Sutton, whose employer stands to gain financially with the passage of massive closures, is violating conflict of interest laws every time he votes on MLPA issues, but the body that investigates these issues has been silenced by the Governor’s office. New commissioner Jack Baylis has ties to Heal the Bay, an environmental group that has lobbied for massive closures and also should have recused himself. He only was recently appointed to the Commission, when it appeared another appointee would vote against the closures, sending the plan back to the drawing board.

Second, the “science” outlining the need for the closures is dubious at best. George Osborne, representing the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, a sportfishing group formed to respond to the MLPA closures, said it clearly and succinctly: “Proponents of the MLPA will have you believe that California marine resources are in dire straits…. This is simply untrue. There is not one marine fish stock experiencing overfishing in California’s waters.”

Third, the idea of reserves in both oceans and on land for preserving fish and wildlife populations is proving false where there have been experiments reserve-creation. The reserves on land or in water don’t appreciably help. In fact, in California there are “game reserves” all over that state that ban all hunting, the equivalent of what is happening to fishing in the ocean. The Department of Fish and Game’s biologists have examined many of these areas and have been unable to find any benefits to them. In fact, they have pursued legislation that would eliminate them statewide because there is no scientific justification. Yet Commissioner Sutton pointed to the shining example of terrestrial “reserves” throughout the MLPA process, ignoring the facts.

Fourth, management options outside of complete closures to fishing, were off the table from the beginning. An area couldn’t be managed, for example, with catch-and-release fishing or reduced bag limits to protect species, proving the process was flawed from the start. The reason California’s marine environment is so healthy (outside of pollution) is because we do manage fish stocks with commercial and sportfishing regulations based on science — not whim or feel-good closures.

Fifth, there has never been funding approved by the legislature to implement the MLPA. The money for the work done so far has largely been redirected from other Department of Fish and Game and other agency programs, much of that money diverted illegally from earmarked funds with slick accounting moves.

The bottom line is that implementation of the MLPA has been corrupt (if not downright illegal), unnecessary biologically, and a huge waste of funds from other programs that needed the money.

This is what Michael Munn had to say about going to the meetings
I went to a couple of the MLPA meetings and it was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. The public input time was a sham, as the closed areas and the outcome were already predetermined. They were merely paying us lip service and wasting everybodies valuable time.

I also spoke with a “Professor” from either UCSB or UCSC and all he kept talking about, is the degredation of the water quality affecting the resources. I think we can all agree that that is a BIG problem. However, when I asked him, “how is urban runoff the fault of fishermen?” He had no answer for that, except that we need to close all these areas to fishing. Oh, guess what else? The “Professor” who was for the closures, gets to “study” the affects that the closures have on the marine habitat. Can anyone guess what his “findings” are going to be? The whole procedure was/is a sham and a fraud! It just disgusts me!

From my good friend and long time sportfishing skipper

Garry Black

Thanks Irv, like you don’t have enough to do. I’m just curious about area off La Jolla, I grew up on the beach, later on a paddle board off Marine Street and Wind and Sea, fishing by and in the kelp. I know someone traced over 8 million dollars back to the Packard family, even though they tried to launder it passing thru other banks and businesses. Evidently the mainstream press is siding with the other side that says”there’s nothing left out there” You should hear our friend Adriana talk about La Jolla Cove and the seals (not the Harbor Seals at Casa) she swims from the cove to LJ Shores and back almost every day and says the larger seals challenge them and make  torpedo runs at them out on course they swim, and at the cove and cliffs next to it the bulls will not back down and snarl at them.. Sounds like a good area to slow troll a whole barracuda at dusk.

A controversy has erupted in the sport fishing community over a new federal management plan for oceans and Great Lakes waters. Recent opinion pieces circulating on the internet and reported on numerous radio stations have stoked the flames through revelations that the policy, if implemented, would prohibit recreational fishing within vast areas of public water.

It has also been reported that many organizations with a history of being against fishing access played large roles in its formation and that the plan could be finalized by the end of March with President Obama able to implement it through Executive Order. 

Despite the firestorm, it should be pointed out that the plan is not currently finalized and, according to a Department of the Interior fact sheet, the Administration denies any intent to restrict fishing access.  However, there remain causes for concern.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) reported on the draft plan in October, 2009.  At the time a combination of factors raised concern with the USSA and other pro-fishing organizations that plan could result in restrictions on sport anglers.

First, there was a lack of any reference in the report to the positive impact recreational anglers have on aquatic conservation.  In turn, this raised an alarm as to what the framework for zoning in these waters will be when the final report is issued. 

Other factors included a history of anti-fishing interests that have been pushing the creation of “Marine Protected Areas” where angling would be prevented.  Several of these areas already exist off theCalifornia and Florida coasts. 

Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce that guides the use and protection of ocean and coastal resources, has also imposed restrictions on sport anglers in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic.  Finally, there is a general concern related to some of the key anti-hunting regulatory appointees made by the Obama Administration such as Cass Sunstein.

When looked at comprehensively, these factors made it necessary that the USSA and other groups ensure that the voice of recreational anglers be heard by the Administration during the formation of its policy.  According to several leading recreational fishing groups, this has not happened and those groups have urged supporters to make their concerns known to their members of Congress. 

For example, the American Sportfishing Association has stated  “It is important that the administration recognizes and promotes the economic and conservation contributions of outdoor recreation, including recreational fishing and boating.”

Jim Donofrio, the Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) said in a recent press release that “I don’t think this president would consider banning recreational fishing outright, but it’s clear to us that the Obama Administration would like to severely restrict recreational fishing.”

Additionally, the U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus leadership, with the support of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, has also sent a letter to President Obama stating that recreational fishing deserves “full consideration and incorporation” in the proposed plan.

The USSA joins these pro-fishing organizations, legislators and others in urging sportsmen to contact their U.S. Representatives and Senators about this proposed policy. It is essential that the Obama Administration appreciates the importance of recreational fishing to conservation and local economies. 

“Recreational anglers provide the bulk of the funding for fisheries and aquatic conservation,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO.  “Their voice should be heard before any policy is enacted limiting access and causing a decline in resources for conservation, not to mention job losses in areas supported by fishing.”

Take Action! Sportsmen are urged to contact their U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators and urge them to include recreational fishing protections in any federal management plan for the oceans and Great Lakes.

To find your members of Congress, visit the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org/lac.
 Print this page Share: 
  
  
            

Anybody who has followed the MLPA process shouldn’t be surprised that these shenanigans are coming to light.  It’s mostly surprising that the arrogant SOBs thought they could get away with it.

Here’s something written by Jim Matthews that you should read and share.  Jim is a well known and respected outdoor writer (and apparently investigative journalist too).  Jim gave me permission to post it in its entirety here.

ONTARIO — The first wave of hard evidence documenting the corruption and conflict of interest that has guided the implementation of the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act surfaced at the meeting of the California Fish and Game Commission at the Double Tree Inn adjacent to Ontario International Airport on Wednesday.

The Commission accepted public testimony again on the so-called Blue Ribbon Task Force’s recommended ocean fishing closures and protected areas along the Southern California coast before adopting a final plan. During this testimony documentation was provided that proved that two members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, Bill Anderson and Greg Schem, lied to the Commission at a recent meeting about having a business association, and Bob Fletcher, former president of the Sportfishing Association of California who has been involved in the entire MLPA process, said there was evidence that both members agreed “to sign off on everything else” in return for not putting a reserve on the Rocky Point area between Redondo Beach and Long Beach where both had marinas and business interests.

Fletcher and others at Wednesday’s meeting say this is just the tip of the iceberg. Sportfishing groups are gathering evidence on three other issues that have plagued the process.

First, Michael Sutton, a member of the Fish and Game Commission and a key support of vast closures, has been charged with conflict of interest and repeatedly asked to recuse himself on all MLPA issues. Sutton works for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which stands to benefit financially from Department of Fish and Game funding to help implement and monitor marine protected areas. But when a complaint was filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission last year, it wasn’t investigated. Sportfishing groups are looking into tampering with the issue from the governor’s office.

In an incredible case of irony, Sutton is also on the FGC’s Marine Resources Subcommittee with Commissioner Richard Rogers, and recused himself recently when the issue was collection permits because his employer, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, has a vested interest in the collection permits.

Second, there is growing evidence that former Fish and Game Commissioner Cindy Gustafson, was asked to resign when she, along with two other Commissioners, questioned the science involved in some of the proposed MLPA recommendations. She was replaced by Don Benninghoven solely because of Benninghoven’s support of the most restrictive MLPA designations, giving the closure supporters a 3-2 majority on the Commission. Benninghoven came to the Commission after a two-year stint on the Blue Ribbon Task Force.

Third, at least 12 of the members of the MLPA science advisory team are fully or partially financed by grants from the Packard Foundation and Ocean Protection Council, both which have been outspoken proponents of the MLPA process’ most restrictive protections, including vast areas closed to all fishing. This is a massive conflict of interest that has led to egregious recommendations. For example, the science advisory committee refused to consider catch-and-release sport angling and sport take restrictions as a management option that was less damaging to the marine environment than unrestricted commercial fishing. A catch-and-release angler fishing barbless jigs for calico bass was the same as a commercial gill net to the majority of the science advisory team.

“They’re all pro closures. Of course they are, that’s the way they’re making their dough,” said one sportfishing industry representative.

Sportfishing interests have said the whole public process was a sham after the Blue Ribbon Task Force essentially ignored the proposals from the three volunteer study groups who labored for 18 months before forwarding their own recommendation to the Fish and Game Commission, which was a breach of what the volunteers had been assured would happen at the outset.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force has also refused to take into consideration the state’s economy and budget, and how closures will affect business and recreation in the region. Its members repeatedly exhibited a cavalier attitude toward the very real economic impacts.

Fletcher said it was likely, with the state’s budget crisis, there won’t be funding to finance the MLPA. Last year, the legislative budget office stripped all funding of the MLPA implementation out of the Department of Fish and Game’s budget, but its funding was continued by from the governor’s office by backfilling with Proposition 84 funding. This year, the budget office is again likely to recommend that funding be stopped — and that Prop. 84 are not used again.

“The whole process is rife with conflict of interest,” said Fletcher. “It has been hijacked.”