Democratic Environmental Caucus

[edsofish]

Here is an press release from the DEC. I responded and will post the response here. Should be interesting.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 27 CA-marine-protect-act
Move comes as California's ocean faces multiple threats

SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The California Democratic Party's Environmental Caucus unanimously passed a resolution to support the state's landmark ocean conservation law, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) at the Party's convention in Sacramento last weekend.

"The MLPA gives the public unprecedented access to protecting our ocean for future generations," said Warner Chabot, CEO of California League of Conservation Voters. "Marine Protected Areas are such a valuable tool in restoring our ocean -- and they can be designed in a way to work for all ocean users."

The resolution comes at a crucial time for the MLPA, as fishermen, conservationists, divers, scientists and business owners throughout the state are working together to create a scientifically sound network of underwater parks called Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The MLPA was passed with bipartisan support ten years ago, designed to create a cohesive network of Marine Protected Areas that are based on the best-available science. Fishing, pollution and climate change have disrupted ocean ecosystems, threatening the health and balance of California's coastal waters. Marine Protected Areas have been proven to restore ocean health, resulting in more sustainable fisheries.

Ex-assemblyman John Laird presented the resolution at the Democratic convention, and it passed unanimously on a voice vote. The resolution will be forwarded to Governor Schwarzenegger and Secretary of Natural Resources Mike Chrisman. Chrisman oversees the California Fish & Game Commission, which will be hearing final public comments May 13 on a plan to protect coastal waters off California's north central coast. The plan, developed by local stakeholders and reviewed by scientific experts, would preserve critical habitat and sensitive species while leaving nearly 90 percent of the ocean open to fishing and other uses.

The north central coast plan was designed to provide maximum ecological benefits with minimal socioeconomic impact, and reflects a carefully crafted compromise between the whole community of ocean users. As long as the plan is not weakened further, scientific evidence suggests that many species of marine life, and ecosystems as a whole, would benefit from the increased protections.

The design process for a network of south coast (from Point Conception to the Mexico border) underwater parks is also under way, and open to the public. The entire process is open to the public and interested parties are invited to attend planning sessions in order to craft the best possible compromise with the least amount of socioeconomic impact.

The Marine Life Protection Act was designed to address diverse, mounting threats to California's ocean health, including climate change, acidification and increased fishing pressure. Friday's resolution underscores the broad support for this vital effort, which helps "to ensure that our ocean is restored and maintained as a productive and vibrant place where people can swim, dive and fish now and for generations to come."

For more information, go to www.caloceans.org and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/

The resolution text follows below:

Passed April 24, 2009

Resolution in Support of the Marine Life Protection Act

Whereas, in 1999, California adopted the Marine Life Protection with bipartisan legislative support, requiring our nation's first statewide network of marine protected areas and placing California at the forefront of worldwide efforts at ocean conservation; and

Whereas, marine protected areas around the world, and in California, have been scientifically demonstrated to protect habitat and help restore ocean life; and

Whereas, California's improved marine protected areas are being designed under an unprecedented public process based on the best available science and including extensive input from stakeholders including divers, fishermen, conservationists and local coastal community members; and

Whereas, implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act is a critical priority for California, helping to ensure that our ocean is restored and maintained as a productive and vibrant place where people can swim, dive, and fish now and for generations to come.

Be It Resolved that the Environmental Caucus of the California Democratic Party, supports the full and timely implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act.

Resolved, that copies of this Resolution be forwarded to Governor Schwarzenegger and Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman.

More information at www.environmentalcaucus.org



Response:

I just read the press release for your support of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI 2004). I find your statements to be misleading and uninformed.

To support this legislation as you have is surprising.

"The MLPA gives the public unprecedented access to protecting our ocean for future generations," said Warner Chabot, CEO of California League of Conservation Voters. "Marine Protected Areas are such a valuable tool in restoring our ocean -- and they can be designed in a way to work for all ocean users."

In the previous statement Mr. Chabot, who is the vice president of the Ocean Conservancy, gives the impression the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI 2004) will protect the entire ocean. Actually the MLPAI pertains to State waters extending from the shoreline out to 3 miles.

He also states Marine Protected Areas (MPA's) can be designed in a way to work for all ocean users. This is possibly true; however the processes for the Central and North Central Coast Study Region (NCCSR) have blatantly disregarded the critical needs of local communities.

A NCCR proposal, namely 2/XA, was developed by local communities with input from all stakeholders. 2/XA has the highest conservation value, meets the scientific guidelines better than all other proposals, has the least socioeconomic impact and possesses the all important, local community support.

However, 2/XA was disregarded by the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) as the "preferred" alternative. Instead the BRTF chose to "cherry pick" from all proposals to create the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) disregarding the attributes, qualities and the critical needs of local communities provided by proposal 2/XA.

While all proposals were sent forward to the California Fish and Game Commission for their final decision, the Commission made it very clear the IPA would be their choice above all others, although, I am happy to say, the Commission has recently changed their stand and have stated all proposals are up for consideration and review.

You have further stated 90% of the ocean will be left open for all users. The fact is somewhere between 75 to 80% will be left open. The closed "no take" areas, also known as State Marine Reserves (SMR's), encompassing the remaining 20 to 25%, contain 75% of all the prime fishing grounds. Consumptive users will be left with useless geographies and further regulations in order to prevent serial depletion of newly developing fisheries outside of MPA’s.

"The north central coast plan was designed to provide maximum ecological benefits with minimal socioeconomic impact, and reflects a carefully crafted compromise between the whole community of ocean users. As long as the plan is not weakened further, scientific evidence suggests that many species of marine life, and ecosystems as a whole, would benefit from the increased protections."

The previous statement states "the plan", IPA, has the highest conservation value and has the least socioeconomic impact; this is not true. 2/XA has these attributes and no other proposal or "plan" shares these qualities. Please refer to Ecotrust results and habitat representation graphs on the Department of Fish And Game MLPA website for verification.

As you have stated scientific evidence "suggests" there are benefits to MPA's. There is also scientific evidence showing ecosystem disruption is possible. Nothing has been proven yet and certainly not here along the California's coastline with its very unique habitat composition and ever changing oceanic conditions.

"The Marine Life Protection Act was designed to address diverse, mounting threats to California's ocean health, including climate change, acidification and increased fishing pressure. Friday's resolution underscores the broad support for this vital effort, which helps "to ensure that our ocean is restored and maintained as a productive and vibrant place where people can swim, dive and fish now and for generations to come."

The previous statement is very misleading and does not address the focus of the MLPA in a real sense. Ecosystem protection is the main goal of the MLPAI. In reality there is only so much an MPA can do. It can discourage anthropogenic interaction and that is about all. An MPA, or network of MPA's, cannot prevent or protect from, pollution, climate change, ocean acidification, oil spills, natural disasters, or natural oceanic changes.

Your resolution has the support of your organization but is not supported by the broader consumptive user groups. The majority of user groups strongly oppose MPA's to the extent they are being developed. The reason for this discontent emerges from all the current regulations and closures consumptive users are faced with now, being coupled with further massive "no take" SMR's. This scenario threatens the very viability of continued, meaningful participation in consumptive uses by Californians.

You mention “increased” fishing pressure; this could not be further from reality. If you look at Dept. records you will see a precipitous decline in fishing licenses. This is due to expanded restrictions and limited entry making participation in all, but one, fishery impossible.

The only critical element of the MLPAI (2004) is how much it will cost to implement. The MLPA (1999) had bipartisan support believing the Act would only cost $250,000. The current projections range from 30 to 60 million dollars per year for monitoring, enforcement and public outreach. In these, and any, economic times this sum on a yearly basis is prohibitive.

If I were to listen to certain groups and buy into their accusations, I would believe the ocean was a polluted cesspool devoid of life that would burn the skin off my body if I were to swim in it. I am very happy to say I do not believe these accusations, and for good reason; those accusations are simply not true. You have only to go and see for yourself.





Ed Tavasieff
Commercial Fisherman 38 years
Secretary of the Fishery Enhancement and Research Foundation (FERF)
Owner of California Fresh Fish
Former member of the North Central Coast Regional Stakeholders Group

[Mark Chow]

Ed,

I believe the continued challenges in your position letter are extremely importan. I just do not have the confidence that decision makers will really care, in some respects, but then, I do not understand the politics as well has you and Ben do, as you have lived through the process.

I was discussing this issue with a friend, who is a film maker.....it is unfortnuate that he has no money, as, I felt this would be a beautiful topic for a documentry......with....one of the underlying topics surrounding the process iteslf, and the biases such as those that you have expressed, and then, all the issues wtih Commissioners tied to Packard.

We talked at length, as he was once a fishing friend of mine, and we discussed the "why's", and where a film of this nature can go...and what can be...well..."exposed"......he came up with a very interesting thought, as we discussed water politics, and MLPA politics., and why, even after there are finanical ties to FG Commision members and Packard, the process does not get slowed, and perhaps restructing of the FG Commission.

Is it possilbe, that if our Govenor has an adgenda to move more water to the South, that there maybe.......say an gentleman's agreement agreement between the Govenor and Packard, or those powers that be...that if they back off water issues, which are wrecking the bay and delta....he will continue to allow the FG commision to move forward, as structured? and urge the MLPA process to continue to move forward?

I do not have any political bacground and understanding of the ins and outs. Ed, I LOVED your post on another forum, whereby you mentioned some thoughts you had that maybe..well....."way out there", but, wanted to be careful....oh well, well, I am preferacing this, as a thought, a concept, a small posibility..but, these days, I am so frustrated, I just do not know who to trust.....and...I know, that I do not trust any politician..............hey, my Cousin ran for Congress in Hawaii.......and, well, his demeanor sure got Wierd, once he ran for office...........politics is very corruptive.

Thanks for the letter!!