Action needed.

Mahigeer

Active member
#1
The bill that could “close the coast’ - AB 3030 – is headed for an important committee vote this week.


TELL THE SENATE - OPPOSE AB 3030
The bill that could "close the coast" – AB 3030 – is headed for an important committee vote this Wednesday.

Don’t wait. Tell your Senator to oppose AB 3030 in its current form.

This proposed law directs the state to consider new marine protected areas in which recreational fishing may be banned. These arbitrary closures would significantly impact your ability to access your favorite fishing areas.

While every angler understands the importance of conservation, California’s existing laws have already achieved this goal – and more!

Please contact your Senator today and urge them to oppose AB 3030 as it currently stands.
1001 North Fairfax Street, Suite 501, Alexandria, VA 22314
American Sportfishing Association © 2018 All rights reserved.

To ensure delivery of Keep America Fishing emails, please add info@keepamericafishing.org
and votervoice.net to your email address or Safe Senders List.

Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.
 
#2
One thing I am worried about is the manner in which these new potential MPAs will be implemented. Multiple studies (Crec’hriou et al. 2010, Le Port et al., 2017, Micheli et al. 2012, White et al. 2008) show that MPAs have the greatest benefit when moderately sized and spaced with respect to underwater geography and larval dispersal. By allowing spillover into unprotected areas while maintaining resilient refuge populations, they provide significant benefits for both the environment itself, commercial interests, and recreational interests. However, if 30% of coastal waters were to be protected, that seems to imply the creation of large reserves that include not only important structure for breeding adults, but may inadvertently also encompass important dispersal routes and recruitment sites that historically would have fed into non-protected areas. This will hinder any spillover effects, as dispersal and recruitment will occur mostly within the confines of the reserves. Additionally, this will likely concentrate fishing efforts in certain geographic areas, putting even more pressure on these preexisting stocks that cannot reproduce quickly enough to replenish themselves, and do not receive sufficient recruitment benefits from surrounding reserves for the reasons stated earlier. The MPAs as they currently are in California are backed by careful modeling of fish behavioral patterns and ecology, and are designed to compromise between environmental interests and economic ones. Nowhere in the text of the bill does it mention any real considerations towards fisheries management or implementation of any real science beyond general trends of extinction and climate change. Instead, there are simply vague buzzwords such as "extinction", "climate change", "access", and "conservation". Given the current political climate and increasing partisan polarization, I believe it is very likely that these changes will be made with less consideration for actual coastal communities and more for an increasingly vocal, yet detached public.

TL;DR: This bill does not seem to be grounded in actual fisheries science, too vague, and ignorant of its actual economic and social impact.
 
#3
Oversimplified diagram showing the potential impacts of expanding MPAs without regard to fisheries science:
Legend:
Blue Empty Space: Historically protected, breeding populations
Blue Lines: Juvenile dispersal from breeding populations
Purple: Historically unprotected populations (dispersal not shown as heavily fished populations suffer significant reproductive losses)
Red: Historical extent of MPAs
Orange: Enlarged MPAs
Light Green X's: Coastal communities
Light Green Arrows: Historical routes taken to a given fishing ground with MPAs
Dark Green Arrows: New routes taken to a given fishing ground with expanded MPAs

*Granted dispersion patterns are more complex in reality, and depend on currents/topography, but this illustrates the basic point made above.*
MPA.png
 
#4
Quoted: "This is why scientists throughout California and around the world are imploring us to act, and why we have responded with our legislation ..."

Don't know what "scientists" whom this bureaucrat Ash Kalra of San Jose is referring to, but as a member of The American Federation of Scientists, within which California is a State member, and a retired scientist myself in the field of Natural Environment and Renewable Energy Research, Development & Applications for over past sixty years, I positively oppose to this proposed legislation which appears vague but bearing a host of latent political overkill tones. Also, being a humble natural sport fisherman, I always have full respects for and uphold, cherish every aspect of The Mother Nature, not only that of California, but also in this whole planet & the universe that we know and all are living in. Hope we will see a sane decision be made for the good of all people in California, pier fishermen/women included, with regard to this legislation proposed by the author from San Jose in this seemingly heated election year. And, hope you folks will raise your voice and oppose this proposed vague political act AB 3030 also. Don't let them close more piers in California!
 
Last edited:

Mahigeer

Active member
#5
I am very happy to see you on our side. We need scientist like you to counter them.

Perhaps a letter to Ms. Ash Karla is in order.

Great to have you onboard. Thank you for you reply.
 
#6
Mahigeer, Thanks for your 'Action Alert' post informing all of us about the on-going issue that politicians love to come up with during election years in the name of the people, and even that of 'scientists' lofty desires as shown in your post. We just have to be alert, don't we?
 

Mahigeer

Active member
#7
Call in Number Released To Oppose AB3030!

AB3030 is set to be heard in front of the Natural Resources and Water Committee tomorrow starting at 9am!

When asked to speak, please state your name, affiliation, and say "OPPOSE" clearly over the phone. Time will be extremely limited and we want as many people as possible to state their opposition.

Participant number: 1-844-291-6364 ACCESS CODE: 9638236

Please note: In order for your testimony to be heard clearly, you must mute any devices you are using to live stream the committee hearing prior to calling into the teleconference service. Please do not testify using speakerphone or bluetooth, this can cause acoustic feedback and make it very difficult to hear your testimony.

Upon calling in, you will be placed in a “waiting room” where you will be muted but you can listen to the committee hearing as you wait.

When a committee moves to public comment, a moderator will ask for anyone who is wishing to testify in “Support” of the bill to please press 1-0. The moderator will again prompt those waiting in “Opposition” when the committee moves to opposition. You should press 1-0 when you are prompted by the moderator – be sure to listen for support or opposition and DO NOT press 1-0 until the proper position has been asked for.

When you press 1-0 on your phone, you will wait and an operator will assign you a line number, at that time you will be placed in the queue for identification. Remember your line number, the moderator will call out that number to identify YOU when it is your turn to testify. OF IMPORTANT NOTE: If you press 1-0 a second time, you will remove yourself from the queue and you will not be identified to testify. Every time you press 1-0 you either put yourself “In queue” or take yourself “Out of queue” so listen carefully, and press 1-0 only once when you are prompted by the moderator.
 

Ken Jones

Administrator
Staff member
#8
This proposal has little to do with actually saving fish or fisheries but is part of a larger climate change agenda sponsored by environmental groups. It's intended to be nationwide but sees California as becoming the first state to enact the legislation. We already have the MPA's from the MLPA and considerable time and effort went into that process which hasn't helped as much as hoped but also hasn't hurt as much as some feared. Those MPA's should be sufficient as far as angling is concerned.

Read the following if you want to see who's behind it.

https://indivisibleberkeley.org/act...erve-30-percent-of-its-land-and-water-by-2030

The PRO 2030 argument — Call your State Senator to support AB 3030 which sets goals for CA to conserve 30% of its land and water by 2030

ACTION: Call your State Senator to support AB 3030 which sets goals for California to conserve 30% of its land and water by 2030 to help California combat climate change and preserve biodiversity. Thank your Assembly person if they voted for AB 3030.

CALL by June 24th:

Senator Nancy Skinner - (916) 651-4009

Assemblymember: Buffy Wicks - (916) 319-2015 (voted for bill)

If outside this area, you can find your representatives at http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

AB 3030 calls for “improving access to nature for all people in the state, with a specific emphasis on increasing access for communities of color and economically disadvantaged communities”. The goals set by this bill should propel the state to finance more conservation jobs in the state. Many of these are outdoor jobs that could provide training and work opportunities for minorities. Conserving more land and water areas will also help buffer communities against the disastrous storms and wildfires that await us in the future. Many of these high risk communities are communities of color.

Suggested Script (shorten as you wish and personalize as in paragraph 2):

Please work to get AB 3030 passed in the Senate. Its goal of protecting 30% of California’s land and waters by 2030 will make us more resilient to the climate change that we can expect in the future and help keep the IPPC’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C a possibility*.*

I am very concerned about the effects of climate change and the need to preserve biodiversity throughout the world and in California. I am an avid (…..e.g. hiker, birder, biker, sailor, nature lover) and appreciate California’s many wonderful natural resources.

Scientists have warned us that nature like climate is reaching a tipping point. They have also indicated that two of the most cost effective ways of fighting climate change are the conservation and restoration of nature. California has already protected 22% of its land and 16% of its water so the goal is definitely within reach.

BACKGROUND

Scientists have repeatedly warned that the world needs to rapidly reduce the conversion of natural land to agriculture and infrastructure (much of it road building) if it is to have any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. They further warn that land conversions and greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 2030 to attain this 1.5° limit. Confining the expansion of agriculture to degraded lands and restoring other degraded areas to natural areas is becoming more important every year.

Ecologists like E. O. Wilson have called for a moratorium on the conversion of natural land to other uses by 2035. They are calling for the protection of 50% of all land by 2050.

Of the Paris Agreement signatories 65% have committed to restoring and conserving their ecosystems to reduce global warming.

Two thirds of all species on Earth are found in natural forests. These ecosystems clean our water and air, cool our earth, stabilize our climate and provide valued recreation for many people. Intact forests (especially tropical and tundra) sequester twice the carbon that planted monocultures do. Along the coasts the least disturbed wetlands and coastal habitats have shown superior ability in storing carbon.

Over one million acres of natural areas were lost in California from 2001-2017.

AB3030 calls for working with the federal government, local communities, Indian tribes and private landowners to conserve resources under their control. Working with the federal government is key because it owns 48% of the land in California. Indian tribes have a long history of being responsible stewards of land and water and this bill will help them get recognition for their stewardship.

US Senators M. Bennett and T. Udall introduced a 30 by 30 Resolution to Save Nature bill in the US Senate in October 2019. It is cosponsored by K. Harris, C. Booker, J. Merkley, D. Durbin and R. Blumenthal. Hawaii has introduced a 30 by 30 bill as well. Only South Carolina has adopted 30 by 30 legislation so far. Many environmental organizations support this bill including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the National Wildlife Federation and Green Latinos.

The California Conservation Corps trains young people (many minority) for forestry restoration and maintenance, rebuilding and maintaining wetlands, fire protection and emergency response to natural disasters. It offers a monthly stipend of about $2000 per month. If AB 3030 passes into law these types of training opportunities should increase as well as other jobs for minorities.

REFERENCES

Dinerstein, E. et al, “A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding Principles, Milestones and Targets”, Science Advances, vol 5 no 4, American Association for the Advancement of Science, advances.sciencemag.org, 4/19/19.

IPCC, “Climate Change and Land”, ipcc.ch, 2019.

Roth, S, “Boiling Point: The “30 by 30” plan to save nature”, Los Angeles Times, 5/21/20



Mark as done
 

Ken Jones

Administrator
Staff member
#9
Has anyone checked to see what the position of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is in regard to this issue?
 
#10
To play devil's advocate, climate change is an important issue that must not be ignored, and has wide-reaching effects for both people in the US and across the world. However, efforts to curtail its effects should not be directed at actions that will affect the civilian population. These actions simply appease a public that has been misinformed by educators and public figures alike. Actions like AB 3030 simply redirect the blame onto an increasingly alienated and isolated subset of the population, while doing little to nothing to actually produce any meaningful change. Consider that when the majority of the civilian populace worldwide was confined indoors, greenhouse gas emissions dropped by only 17%. Compare this to the fact that 70% of global emissions are produced by only 100 corporations. This shows that no matter what the average person does, even en masse, there is no appreciable effect on broader trends of environmental degradation brought on by unregulated corporate and industrial actions.

Rather, any legislation should be directed at large corporations in order to force them to reduce their environmental impact. The efficacy of this sort of legislation was demonstrated when CFCs and other ozone-depleting refrigerants were banned by the Montreal Protocol. Already we are seeing the ozone layer recover to historic levels. Yet today, this sort of unilateral action against industrial degradation is very unlikely, given how much control corporate has over both liberal and conservative politics. Realistically, this legal 'battle' over the environment is more of a 'slight disagreement' over who to scapegoat, while continuing to maintain the status quo at the cost of the vast majority of people who will not benefit from such a resolution. Actual democracy has lost its place in this world order, and it must be reclaimed by the people of the world, not by these private, increasingly automated, transnational bodies that exist solely to amass increasingly absurd material wealth and operate above any moral standard.
 
Last edited:

Mahigeer

Active member
#11
I called the number and at 9:15, I heard the chair of the commity. He later listed the bills that were on the agenda.

I did NOT hear the AB3030 on the list. Did I miss it?

I did hear that there are more than 300 on call waiting. Not sure all related to AB 3030.

Well, I tried.

Can anybody figure out what happened?



Please post. Thanks.
 

Ken Jones

Administrator
Staff member
#12
It may not be the same but whenever I've traveled up to Sacramento to testify to the Fish and Game Commission there have been a multitude of items on the agenda, a multitude of people wanting to testify about each, and what was hoped to be a short time at the meeting turned into pretty much an all day thing (at expensive Sacramento parking rates). It's the way government works.

This is one of many bills and will have many people from the environmental groups testifying for it and many anglers testifying against it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, rarely do the "common" people testifying have much influence when compared to the lawyers and full time paid people working for the environmental groups. The reality of what happens in Sacramento and Washington rarely matches the theoretical of what I was teaching from my government text book when I was teaching government to my seniors in high school.

I'll never forget the talk we had one day over lunch during the MLPA meetings when the member from the National Resource Council (a VP) informed us that they had written the MLPA bill and given it to the legislature to implement. A lot of time and money (and a lot of passionate thought and verbiage) was spent on a process that was largely rigged from the start. 50 people worked on our region's issues, argued and compromised to reach an agreement on a proposal, and then the governor simply turned it over to a 4-5 person Blue Ribbon Committee that made changes that were translated into law. To some degree all the multitude of scientific papers and reports we had heard were simply pushed to the back burner and replaced by the wishes of a few, politically powerful people who never attended a single one of our meetings (as far as we knew).
 

Mahigeer

Active member
#15
When the list of bills on the agenda was being read, i listened very carefully, but did not hear AB3030.

I then listened for a while, but could not listen all day.

There is also issue with 1-0 choosing.
 
#16
I got this email yesterday:



THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION


California anglers are celebrating yesterday’s decision by the Senate Appropriations Committee not to advance Assembly Bill 3030. This is great news as AB 3030 poses a serious threat to recreational fishing access.

AB 3030 aims to protect 30 percent of California’s lands and waters by 2030 but never clearly stated what those protections would be, nor how they would be put into place. The unwillingness by the sponsors of the bill to clearly identify recreational fishing as a compatible use in conservation areas was problematic and ultimately forced the recreational fishing community to oppose the bill.

While there’s a slight chance the bill could still resurface in a different form before the legislative session ends on August 31, it is highly likely that the bill is dead for this year. Keep America Fishing will continue to monitor and engage on issues important to the American angler.

Thank you again for taking action. Your participation made a difference.
 
#17
The legislature would not advance the bill so the Governor today passed by executive order basically the same bill. Business as usual in California.