LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
That is a HUGE accomplishment. Congrats!!! Any place we can see the final arrays?
This is a discussion on There can be only one ... within the MLPA and Marine Protected Areas forums, part of the Politics category; The North Coast RSG has wrapped up their last meeting and is pushing forward with exactly one unified MPA array ...
The North Coast RSG has wrapped up their last meeting and is pushing forward with exactly one unified MPA array recommendation to the BRTF. That's right, they've agreed. Now let's see what the BRTF does with that.
-Allen
That is a HUGE accomplishment. Congrats!!! Any place we can see the final arrays?
Thanks. Let me know when a zoomable version with the regs is available.
Now that is really an accomplishment! Great work and congratulations to the entire RSG for doing some real collaboration.
I will be very curious to see how the BRTF handles this proposal and how the Commission receives it, as well. If it gets implemented in its current state, it will be a first, and set a precedent for all to follow in the upcoming San Francisco Bay study region.
The idea of a single proposal was attempted in the NCCSR but didn't happen for a lot of reasons I will not go into. One point that was made by the I team was multiple proposals are called for in the process and the BRTF is supposed to design a cross interest proposal from the various presentations. However, as John Ugoretz pointed out, there will still be multiple proposals since there is always proposal 0 which is the current existing MPA's. So, if need be you might remind the BRTF that this option exists and you are in compliance with the process.
The other complicating factor is, is the BRTF really essential for the process. At one time, after the CC process, the question of including the BRTF in future processes was debated. Many, including members of the I team felt that their inclusion into the process was not essential. Anything can happen and I hope nothing does.
Great work, and again, my congratulations to all involved.
More to come. Ed Tavasieff
F/V Friendship
One proposal is great..........And it does not look as "land grabbing" as the maps in the North Coast area of the NCCSR. What Happened to the land grabbers????
The importance of a community based propsal trumped any land grabbing.Originally Posted by arch
One has to wonder what the need for a BRTF is if there is only one proposal. Hmmm ...
-Allen
"One has to wonder what the need for a BRTF is if there is only one proposal"...............
Easy............the proposal will go before the SAT. The SAT will say it's not enough. Meg Caldwell et al will take more. If history is any example.......
Our main goal in the south part of the region was to keep the area between Pt. Arena and Ten Mile free of any new MPAs.
I am pretty sure all three counties, and local cities too, will sign a resolution in support of this proposal, and ask that if the BRTF wants to make any changes they submit them to the RSG for review.
Jim
"and ask that if the BRTF wants to make any changes they submit them to the RSG for review."
I'm thinking that will never happen (not that it shouldn't).
These SMR's in the proposal should have an asterisk of some sort attached. The stated "intent" of the RSG was to include Tribal take and gathering of marine resources in most or all of these SMR's. Yet, this will not be included when the regulations are written up. They will be strickly no take SMR's. The tribal issue was raised from the outset, yet the only resolution was a vague 'that is a matter for the legislature' at a future time. What happens if the regulations go into effect without the Legislature addressing the issue?
Last edited by Laukia; 09-03-2010 at 09:43 AM.
Well the NRDC and TOC signed off on it, so Meg will be pretty lonely if she tries to change anything.
The north coast just flat wore these folks out. They are probably feeling pretty fortunate to have any kind of map.
Jim
Nice editorial in the Eureka Times-Standard: "Don't Tread On Me"
Check it out:
Don't tread on me - Times-Standard Online
Jim
Jim,
How do the Yelloweye Conservation Areas play into this? Are those still in the game?
Ben - 25' Davis Short Cabin Rock Harbor
Ben, there was an area off Crescent City/Pt. St. George that was included in the MLPA north coast array, and that area might have been considered a yelloweye hotspot.
But the DFG is still considering a Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area at Shelter Cove to reduce impacts.
At least the PFMC put a new management line at Cape Vizcaino (between Shelter Cove and Fort Bragg) so that if there is a YE problem in Shelter Cove they will shut them down and not us, too.
I resigned from the PFMC Groundfish Panel to focus on the north coast MLPA process. Glad I did. Tom Marking from Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers stepped in for recreational rockfish (private anglers) at the PFMC. Wish him the best.
Jim
Posting Permissions
|
