pierfishing.com :: FAQ :: search :: memberlist :: album
  Sign-up as new user :: log in



Sign-up as new user | I forgot my password

PFIC Message Boards >> Fishery Conservation, Management and Politics Reply to this topic
>> Interesting letter from State Senator Bob Dutton re: MLPA [topic: previous/next]
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 1:46 pm
Ken Jones


Posts: 9461
Location: California

May 19, 2010
Mr. John McCamman, Director
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth St., 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Director McCamman:

It has come to my attention that the Legislative Analyst has recommended "suspension of state support" to implement the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), Further, the LAO recognizes that there is no long-term comprehensive plan to finance enforcement or management of marine protected areas once established. The LAO cites existing state fishing statutes such as the Marine Life Management Act and traditional fishing restrictions that could be used to enforce fishing restrictions as an alternative to this proposal.

While the MLPA may be cast as an "ecosystem approach" to protecting the ocean environment, it appears, according to the California Attorney General, that the only thing that the MLPA can actually do is to restrict commercial and recreational fishing. In fact, the Attorney General, in a September 25, 2009 letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency clearly states on page 9 that "The State Water Resources Control Board maintains primary jurisdiction over water quality and pollution discharges." And, "[the MLPA ... does not grant DFG or DPR new powers to enforce water quality regulations within marine reserves." [Words in brackets added for clarification. ]

After careful analysis, the LAO's conclusions therefore say, in summary, the following:

1. The state does not have the resources to enforce the MLPA.
2. The state does not have the resources to manage and scientifically monitor the MLPA.
3. Current fishing statutes are working to protect California fisheries and, therefore, the MLPA is an unnecessary program.

Given California's long-standing budget crisis where we face difficult cuts to health and safety programs, please justify for me why the Department should continue with implementation of the MLPA. As the Legislature is required to pass a balanced state budget by June 15,2010 please provide your response to me by June 1, 2010.

Sincerely,
~~
BOB DUTTON Vice-Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
cc: Senator Denise Ducheny, Chair, Senate Budge

_________________
Support UPSAC! Preserve pier and shore angling in California.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 2:08 pm
Salty_Dog


Posts: 568

Hallelujah!

The calmer heads are finally beginning to see the Light!

Given the budget deficit and lack of resources, this whole process was moot...
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 4:11 am
muttfishr


Posts: 2095
Location: Tulare

I really hate to see these things happening, all the good intentions of our liberal legislature has our government so top heavy that the whole thing is begining to topple over! Once it starts to go, who knows where it will end? It saddens me because what I consider nonessential, and what they consider nonessential are sitting on the far ends of the tipping pole, once thier programs start to fall off so will the programs we care about. In the end we'll all be worse off than we were in the begining
_________________
Tight lines to all, and to all a good FIGHT!!!
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 5:19 am
black diamond bay


Posts: 109

Two points.

1)Senator Dutton represents the 31st District, a landlocked area which is not affected by MLPA. He is a realtor and an outspoken advocate of water diversion. What a surprise. Dutton is sponsoring an $11 billion bond for 2010 that would expand the aqueduct projects and pump more water to the south.

2)Only a misinformed person would connect the dots and come up with the MLPA and liberals. A careful study of the process and appointees would be helpful. As opposed to knee jerk passion.

The letter carries no weight.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PFIC Message Boards >> Fishery Conservation, Management and Politics Reply to this topic
Page 1 of 1  
Display posts from previous:   
Jump to: