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
>> UASC files suit against MLPA — [topic: previous/next]
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:32 am
Ken Jones


Posts: 9447
Location: California

UNITED ANGLERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND PSO PARTNERS FILE SUIT AGAINST MARINE LIFE PROTECTION ACT INITIATIVE

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (June 2, 2010) — The law firm of Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble, Mallory & Natsis, LLP, acting on behalf of United Anglers of Southern California (UASC) and petitioner Robert C. Fletcher, filed suit in California Superior Court Friday, May 28, 2010 against the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), the Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan Team (aka Science Advisory Team) and additional related defendants. According to the firm and UASC President Steven Fukuto, this action is the first step of a multi-stage litigation process.

The verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint was filed at the Sacramento County Courthouse for violation of the California Public Records Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The suit is tied to numerous requests made by the petitioner for key documents and records pertaining to California’s Marine Life Protection Act implementation process. The BRTF and Science Advisory Team failed to respond to these requests.

Fletcher commented on his petition and said, "It is my contention that both the BRTF and the Master Plan Team are subject to the requirements of the California Public Records Act. As such, their refusal to respond to my requests for certain MLPA related records and documents is a direct violation of that Act. According to California law, any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce their right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record. This is a necessary first step to allow a thorough and careful scrutinizing of the entire MLPA process."

This effort is being is spearheaded by 501(c)(3) non-profit United Anglers of Southern California with the support of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) and its members, which includes — in addition to UASC — the American Sportfishing Association, Berkley Conservation Institute, supporting members of the Avalon Tuna Club, Coastside Fishing Club, International Game Fish Association, Kayak Fishing Association of California, National Marine Manufacturers Association, NorCal Kayak Anglers, Shimano Sport Fisheries Institute, Sportfishing Association of California, Southern California Marine Association and Watermen’s Alliance.

“It has become more and more evident that the MLPA process is being steered off course by special interests — and political motivations — with dangerous potential for restricting many popular areas enjoyed by fishermen and other outdoor enthusiasts,” said Fukuto. “As Robert Fletcher said, this filing is a necessary and important first step in what will be an ongoing and thorough examination of this flawed process. Our legal team has identified several potential causes for action, and we will aggressively pursue any and all legal avenues to protect recreational access for fishermen and all Californians.”

_________________
Support UPSAC! Preserve pier and shore angling in California.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:13 pm
Del


Posts: 160
Location: Chatsworth

This is very interesting. Thanks Ken.
Top of page
Send private message Send e-mail Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:39 pm
lucy


Posts: 816

Yes, interesting... one can hope that this ultimately brings the whole MLPA nonsense crashing down.

I am totally opposed to MLPAs because they are grossly unfair to recreational fishermen, and particularly to recreational fishermen who live in the affected areas but do not have personal transportation. For those fishermen, the MLPAs amount to the same thing as prohibiting them from fishing at all.

Yes-- there are people who don't have cars, and there are people who, for one reason or another, do not drive. There are elderly people who, aware that their vision and reflexes aren't as good as they used to be, simply don't feel comfortable driving. There are people whose vision has been adversely affected by medical conditions such as diabetes. There are people who, because of medical conditions, must take medications that prevent them from driving.

There are also people who simply can't afford cars.

The whole MLPA nonsense simply assumes that "Oh, well, if you can't fish *here,* then you can just jump in the ol' car and drive 50 or 100 miles to *there.*" Well, for many people, that simply isn't true. For them, being prohibited from fishing from the shoreline within walking or biking distance of where they live is the same as being prohibited from fishing at all.

And that is not fair.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:34 am
chum_bucket


Posts: 159

any news from the UASC on how things are going against MPLA?
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: