NCC MLPA delays and Dissent on the F&GC ((ARTICLE TEXT ADDED))

On the Coastside site there are some nice writeups (ATTACHED BELOW) of went on in the F&GC meeting (yesterday?) Apparently the budget, a delay in the CEQA report and a slew of other issues have the process in a mess,

The MLPA stuff is Good reading,   Seems like at the very least the NCC areas will be open most if not all of this season.

The environmental forces are not happy....

Dale L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 articles attached, (copied off the Coastside Fishing Club site)



MLPA North Central Coast Region may be delayed

By Ed Zieralski March 5, 2009, 12:52 p.m.

Very interesting discussion this morning at the Fish and Game Commission meeting at the Fliers Club in Woodland.
Sonke Mastrup, deputy director of the Department of Fish and Game, started it by announcing that the California Environmental Quality Act document, or environmental report, put together by the Resources Legacy Law Fund, for the Marine Life Protection Act’s North Central Coast Region of marine protected areas, was delayed.
Mastrup said the final document won’t be available for adoption until the August Commission meeting because there has to be public notice and a comment period. He said the contractor, ICF Jones and Stokes, an environmental consulting firm, had a management turnover that caused part of the delay.
“The contractor was two months late getting it to us,” Mastrup told the Commissioners. “And it took us more time to review it because of furlough days and less staff, which impacted us.”
Mastrup said the DFG, which can’t even afford to buy enough trout food to feed all the trout in its hatcheries right now, has been dealing with cutbacks and employee furloughs, which caused more delays.
“The contractor was two months late getting it to us,” Mastrup told the Commissioners. “And it took us more time to review it because of furlough days and less staff, which impacted us.”
Commission executive director John Carlson told the Commission the delay should not sidetrack the state’s goal to implement the North Central Coast Region’s marine protected area network, but if it goes past August, there will be problems.
All this set off the two environmentalists at the meeting – Karen Garrison of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Samantha Murray of The Ocean Conservancy.
As an aside here, both of these women were at the South Coast regional stakeholders group meeting Tuesday and Wednesday in Long Beach. Neither is on the stakeholders group, but both sit in on the general meeting and then split off to attend the subgroup meetings. They’re so worried something might get past them, so worried fishermen might get concessions from the environmental plants on the stakeholder group that they move back and forth from meeting to meeting and then huddle to strategize. Murray even had the audacity to warn the stakeholders that they better arrive at middle ground with their maps and marine protected areas because if they don't, the Blue Ribbon Task Force will do it for them. Many of the stakeholders later talked later about how offensive it was to hear that lecture from Murray. But I digress.

A day later they were in Sacramento, basically doing the same thing, making sure the MLPA process moves along without delay.
They’ve earned their nickname of “Enviroettes.”
Both found it hard to believe such a delay in the MLPA process was possible, and Garrison even found it tougher to fathom that the very legal group hired to do the environmental document was late delivering it to the DFG. Both Garrison and Murray were clearly blown away by the news and could hardly get words out, which for them, is not close to normal. These Enviroettes can chirp.
“I find it really amazing this delay can happen,” said Garrison, who blamed the DFG, not the contractor, for the delay.
Mastrup corrected her by saying the DFG was not responsible and that the Resources Legacy Law Fund was responsible. It wasn’t the DFG that hired the contractor.
“We can only work with what we get,” Mastrup said. “We’re disappointed, but it is, what it is.”
All that drew responses from the Commissioners, and then it got really good.
Commissioner Richard Rogers said that this public-private partnership the DFG has entered into with the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, which is paying a majority of the bills for the Marine Life Protection Act, is threatened by these delays.
“This is a public-private partnership, not a private one,” Rogers said. “The public part of this is in jeopardy. If this is a management failure, we can’t afford for this to happen in the Southern California Bite. This is not right.”
I couldn’t see it, because I was watching the commission meeting on my computer, but I’m sure the Enviroettes were squirming when Rogers went off. Rogers has been considered an ally of the environmentalists who are backing these marine protected areas. For him to ask a pointed question about its management and credibility had to unnerve many, most certainly Garrison and Murray.
The MLPA process has moved south to the South Coast Region, and yesterday the South Coast regional stakeholders group met to further that process along. It’s a long way from being complete, but this delay in the North Coast Region has all parties very nervous.
I’ve saved the best for last, but I want to set up my next blog called Dueling Commissioners.
The best part of all this is that commissioner Dan Richards squared off with commissioner Michael Sutton over the required data the commission needs to make a decision on these marine protected areas. This was long overdue, a square-off between Richards, a friend of hunting and fishing, and Sutton, a former Packard Foundation employee who is beholding to the environmental community.
I mean, it got really, really good. I hate for this to be like a radio tease, but you’ll have to read my next blog to get my take on this Commission Battle Royale.


2nd article

From the Union-Tribune Zieralski blog on the MLPA:



Commissioners clash on proper funding for Marine Life Protection Act

By Ed Zieralski

March 5, 2009, 2:51 p.m.

It was only a matter of time before Dan Richards of Upland and Michael Sutton of Monterey squared off about the Marine Life Protection Act.
After all, when one commissioner, Sutton, is totally beholding to the environmental community, and the other, Richards, is a self-made man who owns his own real estate business, well, you see the big difference right there.

It’s like the difference between one man who has his head in an aquarium, Sutton, who happens to work for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the other, Richards, who lives his life in the real water, the real estate world with sharks, bad economics and other realities.

There are many, many more differences, but let’s just start with that main theme.

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.

Richards represents Chrisman and Schwarzenegger too, but he’s not afraid to be his own man. He’s not afraid to ask questions. He’s not afraid to ask for data to show that the state will have the money and resources to cover this extensive network of marine protected areas. He wants justification and reasons why the state needs to shut down both recreational and commercial fishing in more than 20 percent of the state’s key fishing areas along its coastline.

Today, when Department of Fish and Game deputy director Sonke Mastrup said there was a delay in the state getting the environmental impact report for the North Central Coast Region of the MLPA, it set off the battle of words between Sutton and Richards.

It was a joy to watch these two square off. Truly, after two days of MLPA meetings where most of the people there seem to be afraid to say anything negative about the MLPA process, it was a pleasure to hear Richards step up and demand answers.

You can go to the Commission Web site at www.fgc.ca.gov and watch the meeting and see it for yourself.

Richards and Sutton don't back down one bit and show their opposite views on these marine protected areas.

Sutton said the state is going “above and beyond” anything it has ever done to check the socio-economic impact of the MLPA and how the marine protected areas will be managed and enforced. He just can’t believe that the state would spend so much time and effort on this.

Does Sutton not realize this is the biggest resource project this state has ever undertaken? This isn’t about changing the minimum size limit of largemouth bass in Lake Hodges or going to barbless hooks for trout in some creek in the Sierra.

This really is about ruining the lives of some commercial fishermen, forever changing the commercial and recreational fishing landscape of California by forming many unnecessary protected areas. It’s the Desert Protection Act, just add salt. And it’s all being done in the name of environmentalism.

Richards said everyone assumes the North Central Coast Region marine protected areas will be passed by the Commission. But it's not the slam dunk many think it is. He said the Commission will get four options from the Blue Ribbon Task Force and choose one. It’s not a done deal.

That's interesting because when Samantha Murray of the Oceans Concervancy took time out of her busy day Wednesday to warn the hard-working members of the South Coast stakeholders group to reach middle ground on marine protected areas or face the Blue Ribbon Task Force would do it for them. As distasteful as that was to hear, here's a thought. Wouldn't it be something if the state Fish and Game Commission stepped up and finally put some common sense into this overly emotional process that is being steered and directed by the environmental community and and picked the least amount of marine closures that will do the least amount of damage to fishermen's lives?

“We need to know exactly how much this will cost,” Richards said. “The funding must be in place.”

Richards pointed out that the state isn’t doing an adequate enough job on the baseline work it needs to do on the Central Coast marine protected areas because there isn’t sufficient funding. The Central Coast was the first to get the marine protected areas, so the fact the state isn’t monitoring them correctly is indicative of things to come at future marine protected areas.

“We’ll get four different proposals (for marine protected areas for the North Central Coast) from the Blue Ribbon Task Force,” Richards said. “I want to know what it will cost us. Right now we don’t have the money and we don’t have the personnel.”

Richards offered the best analogy yet to describe what the MLPA process has been for California.

“It’s like buying a $500,000 house and worrying about how to pay for it later,” Richards said. “We all know what that has done to our country.”

Sutton’s reply was that if the Commission waited for reports on the socio-economic impact and cost for all issues related to fishing and hunting the Commission would never get anything done.

“We have no guarantee that there will be money for enforcement or research of anything right now, but I won’t stand for the MLPA to be held up on those reasons,” Sutton said.

That’s the way it is now.

So what if there’s no money, not enough wardens to enforce the areas, not enough researchers to do the proper work, not enough trout food to feed the hatchery fish.

Close these ocean waters off to as many commercial and recreational fishermen as you can and put more Californians out of work, out of their homes, and, eventually, out of this state.

That’s a great message from our state resource and political leaders. Watch them as they bait their political solution to catch a complex fisheries issue.

-end-

Thanks for the Report...

 And all broken up about those enviromental forces...

Thanks for the report - interesting developments and perspective for shore. Interested to hear some weigh-in from our resident fisheries bio guys . . .

If nothing else, at least we can take pleasure in this little gem:

They’ve earned their nickname of “Enviroettes.”
Both found it hard to believe such a delay in the MLPA process was possible, and Garrison even found it tougher to fathom that the very legal group hired to do the environmental document was late delivering it to the DFG. Both Garrison and Murray were clearly blown away by the news and could hardly get words out, which for them, is not close to normal. These Enviroettes can chirp.

That was an interesting read - and encouraging.  Sounds like we'll at least get one more dive season at salt point.    Craig, I'll meet you there!  Maybe us old guys will be dead by the time they close it.

As our Governor himself said in Predator, "This is getting better by the minute."

Interesting developments. Does anyone have any insight as to when the next public meeting regarding MLPA specifics will take place? In short, the one we need to be at to speak? I hate putting my schedule on hold but I want to be there when the meetings take place - it would just be nice to know when...

Thanks for the info!

the economic crisis saves fishing....strange but true stories

I for one would love to see the face on Karen Garrison when her little plan for my church falls short of her desires. She should go to Montana and save the wolf by donating her body for food.

There is noting for them to eat. 

There will be no regs in place for this season, they have yet to decide where/when the rules will be proposed and comment taken.

so does that mean that the current (and in season) DFG regs will stand for those areas that might have become MLPAs ?