Posted on 08/17/2006 7:00:33 PM PDT by claudiustg
With armed Fish and Game wardens lining the Beach Resort Monterey conference room and allegations of physical threats casting a pall over the proceedings, the Fish and Game Commission slowly drew a patchwork net of preferred packages to create a comprehensive network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for the state’s Central Coast Region on Tuesday night.
The commissioners argued and compromised into the night, creating a divisive but historic blueprint for coastal resource management. After public comment from about 140 individuals, the commission created a proposal that includes 29 MPAs covering 204 square miles.
The selected proposal is a patchwork combination of Package P, the preferred option forwarded by the Department of Fish and Game and the Blue Ribbon Task Force, and Package 3R, a slightly less conservation-minded option.
If the decision holds, it will include 18 percent of state waters along the Central Coast region, which runs from Pigeon Point to Point Conception. Approximately 8 percent of this total area (94 square miles) is proposed to be designated as state marine reserves (no-take zones) while the rest would allow some recreational and/or commercial fishing.
At present less than 1 percent of the Central Coast region is protected.
The commission had particular trouble agreeing on popular fishing spots in the Soquel and Portuguese Ledge areas, as well as the Point Pinos area from the Coast Guard Breakwater to Point Lobos. Ultimately, the areas received moderate protection and a reserve was created from Point Pinos to Spanish Bay.
The Big Sur area will see more protection and fishermen will retain greater access south of there to Morro Bay.
Despite a unanimous vote at the end of the evening, the mood among the commissioners was far from ebullient. Commissioner Bob Hattoy bitterly complained that the commission had missed a historic chance to preserve ocean resources for future generations.
“We disappointed 44 million Californians today,” Hattoy said. Reminded that there aren’t 44 million Californians, he responded: “Fine, 34 million. When we get 10 [million] more then they’ll be disappointed in us too.”
Others were more optimistic, and acknowledged the historic nature of the accomplishment. The commission applauded the work of the Task Force and the stakeholders who participated.
The Marine Life Protection Act was passed in 1999, but languished until September 2004, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced it would receive priority under his Ocean Plan. The governor convened the Task Force to oversee the process, which has consisted of extensive public participation. The Task Force forwarded their recommendation to the Department of Fish and Game in March after more than two years of research and discussion.
After the final unanimous vote, Commissioner Richard Rogers reminded everyone: “This was just round one.”
“The proposal still has to go through the CEQA process and then regulations will be promulgated and some or all of the areas could be implemented as early as 2007,” says Department of Fish and Game spokesperson Bill Romanelli.
The commission’s deliberations were made after hours of public comment. The crowd applauded or murmured in skepticism or sarcasm at each opinion. Commercial fishermen defended their right to make a living or demanded a buy-out; conservationists, scientists and businessmen lifted placards that read “Ricketts Reserve” every time the Pacific Grove marine refuge was mentioned.
Are they going after sport or commercial fishing, or both?
I'm soooooooooo glad we have a Republican in office! /s
After the final unanimous vote, Commissioner Richard Rogers reminded everyone: “This was just round one.”
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
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, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
Now, the question is, do we defend our rights, or roll over?
Santa Cruz area PING
Oh! Zeke Grader and Glen Spain will protect us!!! /s
Ah, California. "America must be protected from these sources of inexpensive and healthy foodfish!" "There must be some way that we can frive the fishermen out of business! Don't they know that China is the only place that should be making money off of America's natural resources!"
---Are they going after sport or commercial fishing, or both?---
Both.
F'ing bastards.
No fishing or hunting west of Hwy 1? Section 25 is like the 2nd Amendment, I guess, open to liberal interpretation.
Dude, we've been overfished. What's left now needs to grow back. It's a bitch, but there are only so many fish. I recognize the constitutional issues involved (thanks for the appropriate citation), but something has to give. Either reduce the commercial take, or reduce the sporting take. I've been fishing (and diving and surfing) the Santa Barbara Channel and Islands for 35 years, and it ain't what it used to be. Plus we need to take out some otters;>) Shoot, sink and shut up.
I don't like this, but the plain fact is the waters have been overfished. I have 35 years of experience to base this on. It's lousy, but we got to give the waters time to rest for a while.
Here is an e- mail I sent a week or so ago to club members who are organized to fight back. It was in a response to a question of why I was sending out an alert on Marine Protected Areas at theis time. The person who asked the question was a new member.
Hi B and members The reason I sent the California "no fishing" info to the membership is to alert them that the problem will be coming back here again.
Our position on Marine Protected Areas is not that we are unalterably opposed to any area being closed to fishing , but we want have a fair and factual discussion on the proposed closures.
In my opinion what we are up against are well funded enviromental groups who feel that any interaction between humans and animals/fish where the animals/ fish are hurt is not acceptable behavior, and should be stopped legislatively.
New members were not in the organization when we were fighting Ocean Conservancy and the Conservation Law Foundation in 2003 and 2004 when they were pushing for Marine Protected Areas in Mass. Bay.. Particularly Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary. So I will give a lttle background info here.
Stellwagen Charterboat club had to attend hearings visit politicians and get on the Stellwagen Bank committees to fend them off. Some of us spent a lot of our time in that battle, serving on committees, going to hearings and visting state reps and senators
Here is a short version of the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Assn and others , battling against the unilateral imposition of Marine Protected Area in Massachusetts
Weds June 5, 2002 at 10AM td , myself and tm meet with Stellwagen Bank "Superintendant cm to inquire about our concerns that there is a movement afoot to close the Sanctuary to fishing. The bottom line is it can be done. Not directly by the sanctuary but by outside groups. Based on the meeting we come away feeling our fears are justified.
The Fisherman magazine and others peg Ocean Conservancy as the force behind bringing No fishing zones to our area. OC had success in the Channel Islands in California.
July 9, 2002 td alerts us that the SB Sanctuary people want to close part of the Sactuary for research. The so-called sliver. . They want to close it for research. This is an area fished by many cod fishermen. Once again we are not unalterably opposed to areas being closed, We want to participate in the decision. Reasearch for what? How big an area? How long a period of time?. Do you have in hand the money right now to do research, or is it going to be closed for years while you wait for funding .etc. Is it a device to start closing down the Sanctuary to fishermen by a backdoor approach? So far we have stalled that idea. It will be back
Feb 27, 2003 By this time other fishing groups are concerned by the No fishing Zones( MPAs) and organizing against them. pp President of Mass Striped Bass gives us a great presentation on the subject and is elected an honorary member of our club.
April 10, 2003 dw gives us an update on the Marine Park (no fishing) situation and why we need to suport a freedom to fish act.(F2F) D spent a lot of time and effort in this battle and other battles for the club
August 5, 2003 cs gives an update on the MPAs . We voted to donate $500 for printing to help thwart Ocean Conservancy and Conservation Law Foundation's 'no fishing zone plans".
August 17,2004 td brings in rt who is taking information of roughly where we fish in the Stellwagen Sanctuary to keep researchers from closing off these historically fished areas.
Oct 17,2003 (Friday) Twenty two of us go the F2F hearing at the State house and beat up and rout Ocean Conservancy who oppose the F2F bill and want MPAs.
(OC has the advantage that they can send people on their payroll to visit each and every Senator and Representative during workdays to make their case. They have the money and they have the time)
April 6, 2004 td, sj and myself give the club a report on the Stellwagen Committees that we have be on. All committees are dominated by Enviros. .(The chairwoman of my Stellwagen group was jp who is one of the authors on Marine Protected Areas. Our meetings were held in Cambridge. Ten out of sixten members were enviros in one form or another. )
An excerpt from the April,2006 minutes "Basicaly our representation on these committees has kept the radical no-fishing, anytime anywhere types at bay. For now anyway."
For now anyway. We knew OC would be back and they will be. Their jobs depend on it- especially after their California and Florida successes.
The Enviros now have experience how to use the legislative process to accompolish their goals. They have tons of money, lawyers, and hundreds of other employees.
What Ocean Conservancy didn't expect here in Mass., was the organized opposition they got from the fishing groups and the RFA. (Rec.Fishing Aliance) bg who worked hard in this battle is now working for the RFA. mf , did a ton of work on the MPA problem. . Ocean Conservancy will put more people, and more money into the next battle here.
This information is to alert the membership we are going to be in this battle again with Ocean Conservancy, and the Conservation Law foundation and I am sure other heavy hitters will be brought in on their side. They have tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of employees to push their agenda-which is "no fishing"
There were a lot more SBCBA people involved in the MPA battle than mentioned, and I don't want anyone to feel slighted if I didn't mention your contribution. ab,dr,gr, just a few that comes to mind. It was an effort by many groups to fend OC off and try to get factual reasons why areas should be closed..
only the people can protect their own rights from the govt.
The sheeples roll over on their backs, spread their legs, and expose their throats.
As a serial killer of fish I spit on the shoes of Fish and Game Wardens in Mexifornia..
The population of California has doubled since I graduated high school (back in the pliestocene). The quantity and size of the fish available is down. I have no statistics to prove this - just what I see on the end of my line (or in the sights of my speargun). There needs to be a way to keep the common waters from being overfished. I am not sure what the right balance is or how to get there, but this is headed in the right direction. At some point it needs to come off, and that will be the problem. For now, its the right move.
Actually, the common law principle which has historically been used is that wildlife are the property of the state. Like it or not, that is the law. Which is why the state can license fishing and hunting (at least here in the People's Republic with our state constitution).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.