Chrissman Speaks For Governor

[edsofish]

Here is a link to the letter sent to the Commission on June 1 regarding the request of Jim Kellogg and Dan Richards to send a letter to the Governor about funding.

http://www.resources.ca.gov/docs/Sec...ion_6-1-09.pdf

[Matt Plut]

At the bottom of the letter they might as well put "This message has bought and paid for by RLFF and the Packard Foundation." Open and transparent only refers to how blatantly corrupt this process has been from the start.

Thanks for the update Ed.

[Tunapalooza]

Here it is:

June 1, 2009

Cindy Gustafson
President
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 9th Street, Room 1320
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Cindy,

I am writing to clarify the Schwarzenegger Administration's position on the
implementation of California's Marine Life Protection Act. Commentary among
California Fish and Game Commission members during your May 14 meeting
suggests that some commissioners may not be clear on their charge to adopt a
Marine Life Protection Program network of marine protected areas.

During the meeting, two commissioners suggested a delay in further
implementation of the law that is the MLPA. This was apparently based upon
concern for the state's budget situation and, specifically, a perceived lack of
funding for MLPA implementation. The discussion also included a request to
send a letter to the Governor expressing their concerns.

On behalf of the Governor, I want to let you and your fellow commissioners know
that California's process for adopting an improved system of marine protected
areas is well funded. Moreover, there is no reason, funding or otherwise, for the
process supporting the law to be postponed.

The Governor's budgets have consistently provided support for MLPA. This
funding is but a small part of the more than $34.2 million that has been allocated
statewide for MLPA by a partnership of state agencies, and foundations.
Although we share the concerns expressed by commissioners regarding
California's difficult economic constraints, the public-private partnership
established to help fund the MLPA process will help ensure its success.

While I respect the commission's opinion that there are questions moving forward
about how we will fund various aspects of monitoring and enforcement for MPAs,
this was part of what the Legislature and Governor anticipated when the act was
signed into law. The Legislature was clear that the Fish and Game
Commission's charge is to adopt a final master plan and network of marine
protected areas to be managed through the Marine Life Protection Program
within the California Department of Fish and Game. The issue of MLPA funding
is beyond the commission's scope and is more appropriately the purview of the
Governor and Legislature, where budgeting decisions are made. These roles
and responsibilities are distinctly separate.

The MLPA Initiative is a science-based, stakeholder driven process, where every
voice can be heard and all interests are invited to the table to discuss
implementation of the law in an open and transparent manner. Hundreds of
people have directly participated, tens of thousands of hours have been
dedicated, and dozens of groups are committed to making this process a
success. Ultimately, those who will most directly benefit in the long term from a
healthy ocean, namely recreational and commercial fishermen, are being hurt by
those few who seem opposed to the MLPA Initiative.

As a former member of the California Fish and Game Commission, I am proud of
the work that has been done thus far to adopt an improved system of marine
protected areas. I would encourage you to continue to move forward,
empowered by a science-based, stakeholder-driven process that fosters.
inclusiveness and progress.

Sincerely,

Mike Chrisman
Secretary for Natural Resources

cc: Mr. Jim Kellogg, Vice President, California Fish and Game Commission
Mr. Daniel W. Richards, Member, California Fish and Game Commission
Mr. Richard B. Rogers, Member, California Fish and Game Commission
Mr. Michael Sutton, Member, California Fish and 'Game Commission
Mr. John Carlson, Executive Director, California Fish and Game Commission

I bolded some language regarding funding. Secretary Chrisman is flat out wrong. The MLPA contains express language that the Commission shall adopt a master plan and regulations "to the extent funds are available." I've quoted from the statute below.

Fish and Game Code Section 2859(b): On or before December 1, 2005, the
commission shall adopt a final master plan and a Marine Life Protection Program with
regulations based on the plan and shall implement the program, to the extent funds
are available.

Yes, the process stinks and Secretary Chrisman is but one source.

Marc

[arch]

Well that letter has a smell that we all are familiar with. Now with that leg temporary sawed off we will just have to wait and see if there is a challenge to Chrismans letter. But please remember we are still all behind proposal 2XA

[Mark Chow]

Ed,

I was at Svendson's the other day, getting some safety gear. The clerk behind the wholesale counter shared with me a story which I find distubing.

Aparently, as I remember, his wife worked dictation, and was present at a so called "Public Hearing" which was to address whether or not there would be opposition to the USCG expanding their presence all along the coast, in order to protect the marine environment. This activity also included flying unmanned drones up and down the coast, photographing events on the water.


Why distubing...well, I have understood that several sport vessels have had issues with Fish and Game Wardens, over the Vermillion v Cannary identification....with citations almost being issued, until additional wardens were brought on board to clarify.

I remember when our pal Hilda ran the USCG up to Chimney Rock and Reyes when that salmon bite was going years ago, and a 3 mile limit was imposed....hmmmm...what HUGE efforts to keep anglers inside the 3 mile limit, but, politically let agribusiness and all water users in the Imperial Valley litterally kill off our salmon run by water diversion. I feel we are going to be looking at a POLICEING of the waters moving forward, and almost to be treated as violators from the start.

I will ALWAYS clearly remember a comment made to me by a DFG Biologist, while with a Warden at the Pleasanton ISE, when I challenged the bass recovery efforts, and slot limits as a possible way to go:

"California's Wildlife is NOT here for your personal enjoyment, and YOU are exactly the type of fisherman we want to get off the water"

I was suggesting catch and release fishing for bass as a sportfishing activity.

Amazing.

[Superfish]

that biologist is a flake. I hope they lay him off....due to budget. I've know many active and retired biologists and wardens who fish for their personal enjoyment.

[Sleeter]

...and the response from Dan Richards! Whoa!!!

Commissioner Richards goes after Governor and Chrisman