Mr. Mike Chrisman
Secretary
State of California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street
Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Chrisman, June 20, 2009
My name is Allan Jacobs. I am a 3rd generation Californian. My heritage includes subsistence hunting and fishing. I am a retired science and math teacher and a retired commercial fisherman. I just received a copy of your letter to Cindy Gustafson, President of the California Fish and Game Commission dated June1, 2009. You stated that you were “…writing to clarify the Schwarzenegger Administration’s position on the implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act.” In a like fashion, I am writing to you to clarify the North Coast Citizens’ position on the implementation of the MLPA, because your letter suggests that you may not be clear on “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” along the rural California coast.
Let’s take a moment to review more of the text from which I extracted the two quotes in my opening paragraph. You wrote “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 May14 meeting suggests that some commissioners may not be clear on their charge to adopt a Marine Life Protection Program network of marine protected areas.” After reading this part of your letter I was reminded that the Commission’s web site also states their “charge” very nicely and it differs somewhat from your interpretation. It says in part: “The Commissioners’ ultimate decisions must reflect not only the biological needs of our fish and wildlife, but also the wishes, needs and desires of all those who enjoy these resources with the interest, understanding and involvement of everyone who appreciates our magnificent fish and wildlife resources. The California fish and Game Commission will continue along the path of sound and enlightened resource management.” It is clear to me that the commissioners would be derelict in their duties if they adopted any MPA proposal if there is evidence that it does not represent the “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” along the rural California coast. Again, the key words necessary for the Commission’s decisions here are “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” and not as you wrote, just because, “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.” In addition, the Commissioners would be derelict if they adopted any MPA proposal that could not be enforced or monitored as required by legislation, for any reason, including a lack of funding. To do so would not be “… continuing along the path of sound and enlightened resource management.”
Further into your letter you wrote: “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.” (Or, I might add that based upon recent history: where budgeting decisions are not made.) I submit to you that delaying any further adoptions of MPAs is exactly the most responsible step the Commissioner’s can make. Your demand that they move blindly on to adopt MPAs just because there was adequate funding to write them on paper, but obviously not enough for enforcement or monitoring them – as legislated - is a completely irresponsible expectation. Shame on you for pressuring the Commissioners to shirk their greater responsibility to the Citizens of the California just to please some special interest groups who apparently lack the patience and maturity to make sure the current proposals are the best choices and represent “…the wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…” along the rural California coast where they will have the greatest impact, and that they are adequately funded in order to continue “…along the path of sound and enlightened resource management.”
My final point concerns your comment: “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.” This statement shows that you have missed the most important point of all. You need to go back and listen to what is being said by myself and others at all of the meetings (including the May 14th meeting you referred to in your letter). Allow me to say it again now as clearly and carefully as possible. The vast majority of “…those few [of us] who seem opposed to the MLPA Initiative” are the recreational, commercial and subsistence fishermen. Oh, and by the way, we are not few in number. In Northern California and the more rural areas we are the majority. We are well aware of the necessity of responsible regulations and MPAs. We strongly believe that our chosen lifestyle, including the gathering of local sea food in a sustainable fashion, is a legitimate right that we wish to continue. We subscribe to the philosophy that humans can continue to exist harmoniously as active, participating members of our local ecosystem. We don’t disagree with the intent of the MLPA, as legislated. We don’t disagree with the need to use good science in forming MPAs. What continues to cause us to react strongly and negatively is:
1. Some proposals, as written on paper, are excessive to the point of being punitive. For example the IPA proposal closes over one third of Subregion 1 of the NCCSR, and what the IPA proposes for the Point Arena area has become the classic example of the worst case scenario of MLPA applications.
2. Some proposals, as written on paper, are not based on the best current science.
3. Some of the guidelines of the masterplan are not based upon the best current science.
4. Some proposals do not follow the guidelines of the masterplan.
5. Some proposals will do more ecological harm than good.
6. The arrogance of many of those in positions of authority and power, and their lack of willingness to work openly and cooperatively with the rural communities, has alienated most locals.
The MLPAI process has been advertised as being a transparent “…process that fosters inclusiveness and progress.” However, for us the MLPAI process has too often been not readily available or not accessible to the general public and could more aptly be described as “invisible” and “fostering exclusiveness.” We have tried hard to work within the system and participate in every stage of the MLPA process. At times we felt as if we were being considered. At other times we felt as if our rights and the wishes, needs, and desires of the locals who enjoy our marine resources were being completely ignored. Your June 1, 2009 letter was another of these occasions when we felt our rights were being violated. It is a shining example of governmental arrogance and ignorance of the true “…wishes, needs, and desires of all those who enjoy these resources…”
Having our concerns heard and considered by the Fish and Game Commission is nearly our last hope for a fair and equitable solution for the North Central Coast Region. It is also an important step for setting the course in preparation for the MLPAI process on the North Coast Region. Do not make matters worse by attempting to bully the Commissioners into making a hasty, poor decision.
Sincerely,
Allan Jacobs
Point Arena, Ca
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Vivian Helliwell Resigns MLPA Statewide Interest Group
June 25, 2009
Dear Mr. Ken Wiseman, Mr. Don Benninghoven, and Ms. Melissa Miller-Henson
I find that I must withdraw from participation in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Statewide Interests Group (SIG). I am realizing late that apparently the invitation to participate in the SIG comes accompanied by an expectation to act as a communication link or “liaison.” Although I did wish to stay informed and involved, I am unable to appreciate the dubious honor of encouraging fishermen to participate in the MLPA process for the following reasons:
--The MLPA process is neither fair nor transparent.
--The MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) as proposed are not necessary or effective.
--The MLPA process draws tremendous State and community resources at a time when they could be better used for other things.
--I have enough unpaid jobs.
--My work with the fishing community in salmon recovery and restoration may be compromised by association with the flawed MLPA process, under which, in every case, fishermen and fishing communities lose—it is only a matter of how much they lose--for speculative future benefit.
To elaborate:
I work mainly as an advocate for restoring salmon populations, salmon habitat, and the salmon fishery. The MLPA and the Marine Protected (study) Areas do nothing for salmon, and, in fact, draw seventeen Department of Fish and Game staff and huge community resources away from salmon recovery issues at a critical time.
The MPAs will require a tremendous amount of State funding into the future at a time when the State is closing State Parks and losing the salmon. There are currently only 193 Fish and Game Wardens for the whole state, which encourages large scale poaching in reserves while limiting legitimate public uses. The Department of Fish and Game’s Marine Management News indicates that many convicted poachers are multiple, repeat offenders.
The letter I received by email dated 2/5/09 “congratulating” me for being part of the Statewide Interest Groups phone conference calls implies that I will “help spread the word so that different viewpoints are reached.” While I did wish to remain informed through the phone calls, I am not the right person to reach out to the community and encourage participation. Fishermen see it as advocacy for the process, which I am not willing to do. Therefore, I am unwilling to participate further in the SIG. However, Mr. Aaron Newman, President of Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing Association, has shown an interest in providing such a link. He is in a more appropriate position to do so.
I am not convinced of the necessity for creating these marine study areas, which is not addressed in this process. Under this circumstance, the losses of the already closed fishing areas, as well as the potentially closed fishing areas, more than being economic, are too personal for me.
The Fish and Game Commission has no authority to protect from extractive uses other than directed fishing. Any supposed protection from federal extractive uses is trumped by the Federal Powers Act. This makes the MPAs essentially additional layers of fisheries management that are not needed, at tremendous cost and no apparent benefit.
There is no way to adequately balance the compensation of those who are salaried to attend and those who are not, even with the stipend.
The use of small, invitational meetings to “shape the process” causes divisiveness in communities. Though perhaps considered expedient in the short term, this method causes State business to be carried out in secret, counter to the stated goals of being transparent and public.
The arbitrary behavior of the Initiative team was exemplified recently by nullifying a Stakeholder Working Group vote that eliminated one of the proposals. Arbitrary powers of authority surely demoralize the participants, especially the volunteer ones and those whose economic life support systems are at stake. What is the value of the Stakeholder Group vote?
Isolation and disenfranchisement of minority views occur at Stakeholder Groups using the “Delphi technique.” Instead of working toward agreements, individuals whose viewpoints are outnumbered are put into breakout groups where their views are nullified in the outcome. What then is the value of the Stakeholder vote?
Additionally, I have no confidence in Mike Chrisman’s appointed Panel or the Governor’s appointed Fish and Game Commission to fairly arbitrate areas of disagreement between fishermen and marine research interests. There are too many marine research paychecks on the Panel and on the Commission from organizations supported by the same foundations that want MPAs, and no fishermen. Conflicts of interest in the decision-making bodies also negate the Stakeholder vote.
This list is only a sample of the irksome juxtapositions that make it difficult for me to be involved in the MLPA process. No doubt people need to get in there and fight for what can be salvaged, but I am not the right person to be in the middle of it.
Thank you for taking me off the Statewide Interests Group email list.
Sincerely,
Vivian Helliwell
Watershed Conservation Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA)
Dear Mr. Ken Wiseman, Mr. Don Benninghoven, and Ms. Melissa Miller-Henson
I find that I must withdraw from participation in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Statewide Interests Group (SIG). I am realizing late that apparently the invitation to participate in the SIG comes accompanied by an expectation to act as a communication link or “liaison.” Although I did wish to stay informed and involved, I am unable to appreciate the dubious honor of encouraging fishermen to participate in the MLPA process for the following reasons:
--The MLPA process is neither fair nor transparent.
--The MPAs (Marine Protected Areas) as proposed are not necessary or effective.
--The MLPA process draws tremendous State and community resources at a time when they could be better used for other things.
--I have enough unpaid jobs.
--My work with the fishing community in salmon recovery and restoration may be compromised by association with the flawed MLPA process, under which, in every case, fishermen and fishing communities lose—it is only a matter of how much they lose--for speculative future benefit.
To elaborate:
I work mainly as an advocate for restoring salmon populations, salmon habitat, and the salmon fishery. The MLPA and the Marine Protected (study) Areas do nothing for salmon, and, in fact, draw seventeen Department of Fish and Game staff and huge community resources away from salmon recovery issues at a critical time.
The MPAs will require a tremendous amount of State funding into the future at a time when the State is closing State Parks and losing the salmon. There are currently only 193 Fish and Game Wardens for the whole state, which encourages large scale poaching in reserves while limiting legitimate public uses. The Department of Fish and Game’s Marine Management News indicates that many convicted poachers are multiple, repeat offenders.
The letter I received by email dated 2/5/09 “congratulating” me for being part of the Statewide Interest Groups phone conference calls implies that I will “help spread the word so that different viewpoints are reached.” While I did wish to remain informed through the phone calls, I am not the right person to reach out to the community and encourage participation. Fishermen see it as advocacy for the process, which I am not willing to do. Therefore, I am unwilling to participate further in the SIG. However, Mr. Aaron Newman, President of Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing Association, has shown an interest in providing such a link. He is in a more appropriate position to do so.
I am not convinced of the necessity for creating these marine study areas, which is not addressed in this process. Under this circumstance, the losses of the already closed fishing areas, as well as the potentially closed fishing areas, more than being economic, are too personal for me.
The Fish and Game Commission has no authority to protect from extractive uses other than directed fishing. Any supposed protection from federal extractive uses is trumped by the Federal Powers Act. This makes the MPAs essentially additional layers of fisheries management that are not needed, at tremendous cost and no apparent benefit.
There is no way to adequately balance the compensation of those who are salaried to attend and those who are not, even with the stipend.
The use of small, invitational meetings to “shape the process” causes divisiveness in communities. Though perhaps considered expedient in the short term, this method causes State business to be carried out in secret, counter to the stated goals of being transparent and public.
The arbitrary behavior of the Initiative team was exemplified recently by nullifying a Stakeholder Working Group vote that eliminated one of the proposals. Arbitrary powers of authority surely demoralize the participants, especially the volunteer ones and those whose economic life support systems are at stake. What is the value of the Stakeholder Group vote?
Isolation and disenfranchisement of minority views occur at Stakeholder Groups using the “Delphi technique.” Instead of working toward agreements, individuals whose viewpoints are outnumbered are put into breakout groups where their views are nullified in the outcome. What then is the value of the Stakeholder vote?
Additionally, I have no confidence in Mike Chrisman’s appointed Panel or the Governor’s appointed Fish and Game Commission to fairly arbitrate areas of disagreement between fishermen and marine research interests. There are too many marine research paychecks on the Panel and on the Commission from organizations supported by the same foundations that want MPAs, and no fishermen. Conflicts of interest in the decision-making bodies also negate the Stakeholder vote.
This list is only a sample of the irksome juxtapositions that make it difficult for me to be involved in the MLPA process. No doubt people need to get in there and fight for what can be salvaged, but I am not the right person to be in the middle of it.
Thank you for taking me off the Statewide Interests Group email list.
Sincerely,
Vivian Helliwell
Watershed Conservation Director
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA)
Of taxis and abalone...
Spotted heading South on Highway 1 passing Sail Rock Ranch on a recent low tide morning: a San Francisco Taxicab with fare. Does the resale value of abalone now make the trip cost effective? At least the cab was a Prius.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Law of Unintended Consequences
Arch's post below points to an unforeseen consequence of the so-called "Integrated Preferred Alternative" (IPA). When the state reduces access but changes nothing else, the intensity of abalone take in the few areas that remain open increases. More people, fewer abalone, until open areas are depleted.
Abalone depend on clusters to procreate. Larval dispersal is very local: they tend to stay close to their home coves.
A reasonable person can predict the next step. The abalone population will crash in the areas that remain open. To bring them back, the area will be closed or take limits will be substantially reduced. Fewer open areas add pressure and a negative spiral ensues.
If the IPA is ratified by the Fish and Game Commission, an immediate reduction in abalone take is called for to prevent a crash in the abalone population. Since the consequence is foreseeable now, F&GC should take action in parallel with Marine Protected Area closures.
Abalone depend on clusters to procreate. Larval dispersal is very local: they tend to stay close to their home coves.
A reasonable person can predict the next step. The abalone population will crash in the areas that remain open. To bring them back, the area will be closed or take limits will be substantially reduced. Fewer open areas add pressure and a negative spiral ensues.
If the IPA is ratified by the Fish and Game Commission, an immediate reduction in abalone take is called for to prevent a crash in the abalone population. Since the consequence is foreseeable now, F&GC should take action in parallel with Marine Protected Area closures.
View from the North Coast
Dan Richards -
For the last 3 mornings I have sat on the hill above Highway 1 watching the ranch and enjoying the view. Watching the same cars, 3 days in a row northbound before the tide and then again watching them go south after the tide. Where are they going? North for abalone at some open to the public area: Stornetta Ranch, Mote Creek and maybe The Sea Ranch, except the County Parks do no open the gates until after sunrise. Hundreds of cars storming north. Cate and her family sat and watched the same migration at their ranch near Sail Rock, below Saunders Reef in Mendocino County. It was a windy and rough ocean, not even a boat from the South came North. And they will be back again for the big -1.9 tides in late May and again in late June.
Then I looked at our ranch, less than 8 people in three days (none this morning). Only 9 abalone were taken in 3 days, a couple sea trout and a handful of cabazon and 20 lbs of mussels. What impact do we have on the resources. Very little if any. What good is it to close these private lands? The locals that own lands here on the coast are not the problem of diminishing resources. It is outsiders. How do we save the resources by punishing the private landowners who have been the stewards of the ocean and the ecosystem for years? We have done nothing wrong for 130 years, but we are the ones who lose if the IPA is implemented. The migration of people will still appear here on the coast to rape it. What are they losing? At this time not much of anything. So without closing some of the public access trails (The Sea Ranch/2XA) nothing changes. If 2XA is adopted, the ecosystem gains by having a longer stretch of coastline protected by The Sea Ranch and the Richardson family. And the Sonoma County Park access trails are already in place for enjoyment and study of an SMR, unlike private lands which don’t have trails and you don’t even know if you can access yet…or ever.
And now that brings us to the cost factor. You and Comm. Kellogg have the right idea. Just send it back to the state for their real opinion of the cost for the future. I don’t think this will happen, so we will just have to guess. With the present budget how it is and prop 84 in limbo, where will it come from? As the state is broke and for how may more years will it be broke? Will the outside interests still be there in years to come…or will they take it over from the state. What would happen if the state dropped all funding and the outside organizations took control? Is this legal? Would the Fish and Game still have a say in what goes on? Will it really cost $60 million a year as I have read about?
Before any action is taken by the Commission I think it is advisable that you all come take a look at our coast on a major abalone low tide. Either in person or have F&G personal take pictures of the parking lots and coastline in key access areas. You will see first hand what is happening to our resources. Once the process is put into place, and it doesn’t really mater which one, the overload will begin. New regulations must follow ASAP…lowering the daily and seasonal limit, shortening the season, restricting the gear type…boats should go!!! More enforcement personnel is needed to patrol and enforce both open and closed areas. As the landowners will not be keeping an open eye any longer. Cal-Tip will have to put in more lines. The illegal activity, commercial take of abalone will flourish under these or any changes.
I’m at a loss for what really is going to and will happen, it is a slap in the faces for those of us that have lived here for generations. If anything does happen I sure hope that 2XA is the “chosen one” and we deal with the financial problems as they arise. See you on the 14th and let’s hope all goes well. As my family and the people of Sub-regions 1 & 2 can only live with 2XA. It doesn’t matter what “she” says…It was the popular and supported proposal in this area…2XA!!!
Arch Richardson
The 5 Richardson families, 5 ranches, 4.6 mile of coastline, 130+ years heritage
The thousands on the coast that support 2XA
For the last 3 mornings I have sat on the hill above Highway 1 watching the ranch and enjoying the view. Watching the same cars, 3 days in a row northbound before the tide and then again watching them go south after the tide. Where are they going? North for abalone at some open to the public area: Stornetta Ranch, Mote Creek and maybe The Sea Ranch, except the County Parks do no open the gates until after sunrise. Hundreds of cars storming north. Cate and her family sat and watched the same migration at their ranch near Sail Rock, below Saunders Reef in Mendocino County. It was a windy and rough ocean, not even a boat from the South came North. And they will be back again for the big -1.9 tides in late May and again in late June.
Then I looked at our ranch, less than 8 people in three days (none this morning). Only 9 abalone were taken in 3 days, a couple sea trout and a handful of cabazon and 20 lbs of mussels. What impact do we have on the resources. Very little if any. What good is it to close these private lands? The locals that own lands here on the coast are not the problem of diminishing resources. It is outsiders. How do we save the resources by punishing the private landowners who have been the stewards of the ocean and the ecosystem for years? We have done nothing wrong for 130 years, but we are the ones who lose if the IPA is implemented. The migration of people will still appear here on the coast to rape it. What are they losing? At this time not much of anything. So without closing some of the public access trails (The Sea Ranch/2XA) nothing changes. If 2XA is adopted, the ecosystem gains by having a longer stretch of coastline protected by The Sea Ranch and the Richardson family. And the Sonoma County Park access trails are already in place for enjoyment and study of an SMR, unlike private lands which don’t have trails and you don’t even know if you can access yet…or ever.
And now that brings us to the cost factor. You and Comm. Kellogg have the right idea. Just send it back to the state for their real opinion of the cost for the future. I don’t think this will happen, so we will just have to guess. With the present budget how it is and prop 84 in limbo, where will it come from? As the state is broke and for how may more years will it be broke? Will the outside interests still be there in years to come…or will they take it over from the state. What would happen if the state dropped all funding and the outside organizations took control? Is this legal? Would the Fish and Game still have a say in what goes on? Will it really cost $60 million a year as I have read about?
Before any action is taken by the Commission I think it is advisable that you all come take a look at our coast on a major abalone low tide. Either in person or have F&G personal take pictures of the parking lots and coastline in key access areas. You will see first hand what is happening to our resources. Once the process is put into place, and it doesn’t really mater which one, the overload will begin. New regulations must follow ASAP…lowering the daily and seasonal limit, shortening the season, restricting the gear type…boats should go!!! More enforcement personnel is needed to patrol and enforce both open and closed areas. As the landowners will not be keeping an open eye any longer. Cal-Tip will have to put in more lines. The illegal activity, commercial take of abalone will flourish under these or any changes.
I’m at a loss for what really is going to and will happen, it is a slap in the faces for those of us that have lived here for generations. If anything does happen I sure hope that 2XA is the “chosen one” and we deal with the financial problems as they arise. See you on the 14th and let’s hope all goes well. As my family and the people of Sub-regions 1 & 2 can only live with 2XA. It doesn’t matter what “she” says…It was the popular and supported proposal in this area…2XA!!!
Arch Richardson
The 5 Richardson families, 5 ranches, 4.6 mile of coastline, 130+ years heritage
The thousands on the coast that support 2XA
Friday, February 13, 2009
Pt. Arena City Council Petitions F&G Commission
January 22, 2009
1416
Attention: Richard B. Rogers
Cindy Gustafson
Jim Kellogg
Michael Sutton
Daniel Richards
Dear Commissioners,
As we have previously stated,
- We the City Council of Point Arena, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, value our Municipal Pier as a vital part of the City and as an access point for recreational and commercial boating and hope that the final Marine Protected Areas will permit continued boating operations, both for recreational users and the professionals that constitute our tiny fleet.
- Many members of our community, including a number of particularly dedicated sport and professional fishermen, have been diligently involved in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process and have advocated for those alternatives that appeared at each stage of the process which best achieved both the goals of the MLPA and also reduced the impact on socioeconomics, fishing tradition, heritage and safety.
At this point, as the Blue Ribbon Task Force sets forth before the California Department of Fish and Game yet another array of options - 1-3, 2XA, 4, an Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) which combines elements of the first three and No Action - the City of Point Arena continues to favor Proposal 2XA for reasons including:
1. Proposal 2XA protects 18.5% of the coastline from Alder Creek to Pigeon Point, the same amount of protected areas as the new Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) in the
2. Socioeconomic impact is not a consideration in the environmental impact report that is currently being prepared by the Department of Fish and Game, but it matters gravely to us. Reduced fishing opportunities have a direct impact on our already strained economy. 2/XA places one MPA near Point Arena whereas the preferred alternative option has 3 MPA areas to the north and south of Arena Cove. We believe there will be a negative impact resulting from increased fishing pressure in the open area in front of the Cove.
3.
4. Proposal 2/XA managed to come up with a solution for the Sea Ranch and
In addition, knowing that the BRTF deliberated at its April 22-23 meeting and recognized that the four proposals (1-3, 2XA, IPA, and 4) all generally met the science of the master plan for the MPAs, the City of Point Arena City Council, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, urges in the strongest possible terms that, should the IPA be chosen, the following changes be implemented in the IPA:
While the size and location of the Point Arena SMCA in the IPA are agreeable, please return to the description of it in 2XA. Also, remove the Saunders Reef Conservation Area and remove Sea Lion Cove Conservation Area.
Yours respectfully,
Lauren Sinnott,
City of Point Arena Councilmembers
Monday, February 9, 2009
Pt. Arena Fisherman Petition Fish & Game Commission
February 8, 2009
Dear Commissioners,
The attached petition was signed during a short period of time. All but two of the signatures were obtained at Arena Cove. The two exceptions signed on at one’s home about five miles away. Arena Cove is the harbor and fishing port within the city of Point Arena where these fishermen make their local landings. All of these fishermen have a history of fishing out of Arena Cove, and plan to continue commercial fishing in the future. Of course, those who only fish for salmon did not fish last year due to the state-wide closure, but they expect to troll for salmon again when the Chinook stocks recover. This petition could not be more local. It’s the ultimate example of one group of “the people who actually fish and use the resource that need to step up” actually stepping up to be heard!
These 19 signatures include all of the local commercial fishermen except one salmon troller who is out of the state at this time. So it is important to note that while there are only 19 signatures it is 95% of the active local commercial fishermen with a history of fishing out of Arena Cove. Our local communities are small and so these fishermen make up a relatively large part of the local workforce. But just their impact directly on our economy, as important as that is in these times of hardship, should not be the only concern. Read the wording of the petition carefully. It is not a trivial thing that they all agreed to sign this. They really do understand the issues. They have more to lose than most if we cannot maintain a sustainable fishery. It is a major step for them to agree with the 2XA proposal for the right reasons and with the hope and expectation that you will respect their professional opinions and their rights to continue in their chosen lifestyles.
Thank you for your consideration,
Allan Jacobs
Point Arena, Ca 95468
Point Arena Commercial Fisherman Petition
We, the undersigned, are licensed commercial fishermen who have earned income working out of the Port of Arena Cove and along the nearby coastline. We take pride in being active participants in sustainable fisheries that provide a significant economic support for our local communities. We are also proud of our marine heritage and the traditions of making an honorable living by supplying high quality seafood for those who do not have the ability to harvest their own seafood. We have enjoyed a working relationship with the City of Point Arena, which has maintained a working pier and harbor facility since 1986. We understand and acknowledge that our landing fees are the principal income necessary for the continued use of the Pier and Harbor facilities which are public and made available equally to all people. We also understand, appreciate, and enjoy our additional role in the community of providing a close up view of the lifestyle and culture of fishermen that is a colorful attraction for the general public’s enjoyment and an added attraction for tourism.
In order to maintain our current levels of sustainable harvest while maintaining a reasonable level of safety and the lowest possible carbon footprint and lowest level of other forms of polution, we ask only that the number and size of MPAs near the Port of Arena Cove be kept at a manageable minimum. The IPA, as it is currently proposed, is excessively severe in its size, species restrictions, and proximity to our port. We all agree that the alternative proposal named 2XA would satisfy all of the governmental and scientific requirements of the MLPA while allowing us to continue as we have in well managed, sustainable fisheries. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to ask you, the California Fish and Game Commissioners, to act in our best interests, the best interests of our local communities, and the best interests of the citizens of California as a whole, by adopting the local MPAs as described in Proposal 2XA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dear Commissioners,
The attached petition was signed during a short period of time. All but two of the signatures were obtained at Arena Cove. The two exceptions signed on at one’s home about five miles away. Arena Cove is the harbor and fishing port within the city of Point Arena where these fishermen make their local landings. All of these fishermen have a history of fishing out of Arena Cove, and plan to continue commercial fishing in the future. Of course, those who only fish for salmon did not fish last year due to the state-wide closure, but they expect to troll for salmon again when the Chinook stocks recover. This petition could not be more local. It’s the ultimate example of one group of “the people who actually fish and use the resource that need to step up” actually stepping up to be heard!
These 19 signatures include all of the local commercial fishermen except one salmon troller who is out of the state at this time. So it is important to note that while there are only 19 signatures it is 95% of the active local commercial fishermen with a history of fishing out of Arena Cove. Our local communities are small and so these fishermen make up a relatively large part of the local workforce. But just their impact directly on our economy, as important as that is in these times of hardship, should not be the only concern. Read the wording of the petition carefully. It is not a trivial thing that they all agreed to sign this. They really do understand the issues. They have more to lose than most if we cannot maintain a sustainable fishery. It is a major step for them to agree with the 2XA proposal for the right reasons and with the hope and expectation that you will respect their professional opinions and their rights to continue in their chosen lifestyles.
Thank you for your consideration,
Allan Jacobs
Point Arena, Ca 95468
Point Arena Commercial Fisherman Petition
We, the undersigned, are licensed commercial fishermen who have earned income working out of the Port of Arena Cove and along the nearby coastline. We take pride in being active participants in sustainable fisheries that provide a significant economic support for our local communities. We are also proud of our marine heritage and the traditions of making an honorable living by supplying high quality seafood for those who do not have the ability to harvest their own seafood. We have enjoyed a working relationship with the City of Point Arena, which has maintained a working pier and harbor facility since 1986. We understand and acknowledge that our landing fees are the principal income necessary for the continued use of the Pier and Harbor facilities which are public and made available equally to all people. We also understand, appreciate, and enjoy our additional role in the community of providing a close up view of the lifestyle and culture of fishermen that is a colorful attraction for the general public’s enjoyment and an added attraction for tourism.
In order to maintain our current levels of sustainable harvest while maintaining a reasonable level of safety and the lowest possible carbon footprint and lowest level of other forms of polution, we ask only that the number and size of MPAs near the Port of Arena Cove be kept at a manageable minimum. The IPA, as it is currently proposed, is excessively severe in its size, species restrictions, and proximity to our port. We all agree that the alternative proposal named 2XA would satisfy all of the governmental and scientific requirements of the MLPA while allowing us to continue as we have in well managed, sustainable fisheries. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to ask you, the California Fish and Game Commissioners, to act in our best interests, the best interests of our local communities, and the best interests of the citizens of California as a whole, by adopting the local MPAs as described in Proposal 2XA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Schwarzenegger Freezes Funding for MLPA-Related Activities Due to State Budget Crisis
SACRAMENTO, CA, January 22, 2009 – Governor Schwarzenegger’s December 19, 2008 Executive Order (S-16-08), designed to help prevent a state budget shortfall, suspended indefinitely funding for essential Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) oversight initiatives. The budget cuts have created concern among stakeholders that, with a loss of funding, critical scientific and enforcement safeguards in newly created marine protected areas (MPAs) may unnecessarily restrict recreational angling or prohibit it entirely.
Proposed cutbacks related to the MLPA implementation total more than $6,756,000. This does not include work stoppages or potential furloughs or cutbacks within the Department of Fish and Game itself. In response, the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) recently sent a letter to the governor urging him to consider the impact of such funding restrictions on the effectiveness of the implementation process and the impacts on anglers, boaters and local economies.
The California Department of Finance has released a 161-page, 5,300-item list of public works projects that will be suspended or delayed indefinitely because of the state's cash crunch which can be found on the following Website:
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/pmib-staff/20090116_projects.pdf
“The MLPA is supposed to be a science-based initiative, and with the current budget crisis in California, that will no longer be the case,” said Gordon Robertson, vice president of the American Sportfishing Association and a member of the PSO, a coalition of angling and boating groups. “Without funding, the MPA review process will lack basic enforcement safeguards. In addition, without a scientific basis and required scientific baseline and monitoring data, there cannot be a proper five-year review and a chance for adaptive management, which is clearly prescribed in the statute.”
In order for the MLPA process to work, MPA management requires a scientific baseline, along with continued monitoring and enforcement. Absent such enforcement and scientific monitoring, future scientists will not have the data to analyze the success or failure of a marine protected area, significantly curtailing its utility.
“California cannot pick and choose which part of the statute to implement,” Robertson continued. “Without scientific monitoring and adequate enforcement, vast areas of the California coast will be closed to public access and public resources. In the end, such piecemeal implementation only costs California more jobs and more economic woes, with coastal communities taking the brunt of the economic hit.”
The PSO has requested a meeting with Governor Schwarzenegger to develop a strategy to ensure the future health of the marine environment without unnecessary restrictions on recreational anglers and boaters. To download a copy of the PSO letter to the governor, go to http://www.keepamericafishing.org/california.asp.
PSO members include the American Sportfishing Association, Berkley Conservation Institute, Coastside Fishing Club, International Game Fish Association, Kayak Fishing Association of California, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Nor-Cal Kayak Anglers, Shimano Sport Fisheries Initiative, Southern California Marine Association and the Sportfishing Association of California.
Following are the entries to the "shut down or suspended" list for clarification along with the amount for the project and if it was active or just in the pipeline.
Proposed cutbacks related to the MLPA implementation total more than $6,756,000. This does not include work stoppages or potential furloughs or cutbacks within the Department of Fish and Game itself. In response, the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) recently sent a letter to the governor urging him to consider the impact of such funding restrictions on the effectiveness of the implementation process and the impacts on anglers, boaters and local economies.
The California Department of Finance has released a 161-page, 5,300-item list of public works projects that will be suspended or delayed indefinitely because of the state's cash crunch which can be found on the following Website:
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/pmib-staff/20090116_projects.pdf
“The MLPA is supposed to be a science-based initiative, and with the current budget crisis in California, that will no longer be the case,” said Gordon Robertson, vice president of the American Sportfishing Association and a member of the PSO, a coalition of angling and boating groups. “Without funding, the MPA review process will lack basic enforcement safeguards. In addition, without a scientific basis and required scientific baseline and monitoring data, there cannot be a proper five-year review and a chance for adaptive management, which is clearly prescribed in the statute.”
In order for the MLPA process to work, MPA management requires a scientific baseline, along with continued monitoring and enforcement. Absent such enforcement and scientific monitoring, future scientists will not have the data to analyze the success or failure of a marine protected area, significantly curtailing its utility.
“California cannot pick and choose which part of the statute to implement,” Robertson continued. “Without scientific monitoring and adequate enforcement, vast areas of the California coast will be closed to public access and public resources. In the end, such piecemeal implementation only costs California more jobs and more economic woes, with coastal communities taking the brunt of the economic hit.”
The PSO has requested a meeting with Governor Schwarzenegger to develop a strategy to ensure the future health of the marine environment without unnecessary restrictions on recreational anglers and boaters. To download a copy of the PSO letter to the governor, go to http://www.keepamericafishing.org/california.asp.
PSO members include the American Sportfishing Association, Berkley Conservation Institute, Coastside Fishing Club, International Game Fish Association, Kayak Fishing Association of California, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Nor-Cal Kayak Anglers, Shimano Sport Fisheries Initiative, Southern California Marine Association and the Sportfishing Association of California.
Following are the entries to the "shut down or suspended" list for clarification along with the amount for the project and if it was active or just in the pipeline.
- 3760 Santa Monica Bay survey of science needs relative to the Marine Life Protection Act Los Angeles $ 142,818 x was active
- 3760 California Ocean Science Trust will develop and implement the California Marine Life Protection Act Monitoring Program Statewide $ 1,789,427 x was active
- 3760 Initiate, manage and implement data acquisition for nearshore and offshore substrate and marine habitat mapping within the Central and North Central Coast Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) project areas Statewide $ 1,092,727 x was active
- 3760 Funds are being used to conduct intertidal visual surveys for year two of the Central Coast Marine Protected Area Baseline Monitoring project (“the project”) for the Central Coast Study Region (CCSR) of the Marine Life Protection Act. Statewide $ 197,690 x was active
- 3760 Funds are being used to conduct two distinct surveys to assess MPAs in the Central Coast Study Region (CCSR) of the Marine Life Protection Act: (1) submarine surveys of deep waters and (2) hook and line surveys of nearshore fish in cooperation with recreational fishermen. Statewide $ 1,180,190 x was in pipeline.
- 3760 The grantee shall use these funds to conduct SCUBA surveys for year two of the Central Coast Marine Protected Area Baseline Monitoring project (“the project”) for the Central Coast Study Region (CCSR) of the Marine Life Protection Act. Statewide $ 325,870 x was in pipeline
- 3760 Funds are being used to carry out the Central Coast ROV Monitoring Research Project Central Coast MPAs $ 843,729 x was active
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Partnership wants to slow marine protection process
In the third inning, MLPAI flaws seem to be catching up with it.
Ed Zieralski Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. January 17, 2009
A group of recreational fishing interests has asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to suspend the Marine Life Protection Act process until financially challenged California has the money to fund it properly.
Ed Zieralski Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. January 17, 2009
A group of recreational fishing interests has asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to suspend the Marine Life Protection Act process until financially challenged California has the money to fund it properly.
The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, which includes MLPA South Coast Region stakeholders such as Bob Fletcher of the Sportfishing Association of California, has sent a letter to Schwarzenegger requesting a meeting.
The partnership has “serious concerns regarding the availability of funds necessary to adequately implement the MLPA going forward,” the letter states. The PSO wants to meet with the governor to discuss a strategy to “ensure the health of our marine environment going forward.” The PSO's alternative to the MLPA process is to allow existing state and federal fisheries' management practices to play out and do the work for which they were funded and designed to do.
The PSO told the governor that when there's enough money to properly complete the MLPA, then the state should proceed.
The MLPA calls for the redesign of California's system of marine protected areas along its 1,200 miles of coastline. The Department of Fish and Game estimates that the state needs as much as $40 million a year to monitor, enforce and do public outreach with regard to these protected areas.
Lacking proper data, enforcement and funding, the PSO said, the MLPA process will result in permanent placement of marine protection acts that “either unnecessarily restrict recreational angling or prohibit it entirely.”
“Not only does that fail to comply with the requirements of the MLPA, it arbitrarily and unnecessarily creates additional economic hardship in California whose citizens are suffering terribly,” the PSO said.
Much of these financial struggles were evident at the two-day Marine Life Protection Act's regional stakeholder event in San Diego this week. The major theme of the meetings was haste.
No question the MLPA Initiative's paid facilitators are in a hurry-up offense the likes of which any NFL offensive coordinator would envy.
They talked fast and continually asked South Coast stakeholder members, especially the commercial and recreational fishermen, to talk to scientists and others “off-line.”
Even the scheduled scientist-presenters, armed with Power Point presentations and such, were shoved along.
The public was hustled in and out. Attorney Peter Flournoy, who represents commercial fishing interests, spoke during the public comment period and scolded the MLPA Initiative team for “steamrolling” the process.
The reason for the accelerated pace of the MLPA process is obvious now. The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative team has run out of allotted state money. It once again will put out its hand to its financial backers, the preservationist-backed Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. The RLFF has donated more than $18 million to keep the MLPA process afloat.
But now other funding for the MLPA process has dried up.
Projected state money will be wiped out in proposed budget cuts.
Schwarzenegger this week asked the Legislature to make more tough cuts to close a record $42 billion deficit forecast over the next 18 months.
All of this has gotten the attention of the Fish and Game Commission, which has the final approval on any marine protected areas. Commissioner Dan Richards of Upland has been the panel's common-sense voice in asking that any future marine protection acts be properly funded. He asked for the cost analysis by the Department of Fish and Game.
The recreational fisheries partnership isn't asking the MLPA initiative team to leave the playing field. It is asking Schwarzenegger to recognize this financial fiasco and headlong rush to fisheries management, and call a timeout to get the play right.
Ed Zieralski: (619) 293-1225; ed.zieralski@uniontrib.com
Monday, January 19, 2009
Getting Real
Could it be that the lack of substantial data behind the MLPAI is going to stop enactment of closures?
Fish and Game Commissioner Dan Richards voiced substantial concerns about the MLPA closures, though he and others want to honor the public input to the process so far. He is one of two, possibly three, commissioners who are currently voicing this concern. His comments can be seen in Western Outdoor News . In summary, the concerns are:
Fish and Game Commissioner Dan Richards voiced substantial concerns about the MLPA closures, though he and others want to honor the public input to the process so far. He is one of two, possibly three, commissioners who are currently voicing this concern. His comments can be seen in Western Outdoor News . In summary, the concerns are:
- No science that supports abalone closure
- Lack of state funds to enforce the law
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Civics 101
By Ed Zieralski
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Welcome to Civics 101, courtesy of the California Fish and Game Commission, the Legislature and the rabid preservationists who are hijacking our state's resources. Today's lesson is a basic one.
Don't pass legislation like the Marine Life Protection Act without a funding plan to make it work. Otherwise, all you get is a giant ocean money pit and dazed and confused Fish and Game commissioners.
I digress.
In 1999, the misguided Legislature passed the Marine Life Protection Act, a plan to establish a network of underwater refuges along the state's 1,100-mile coastline. Proponents of the act say it's all about protection of habitat, ecosystems and developing a beautiful underwater
In reality, the process was hijacked by preservationists and anti-fishing groups who now are targeting commercial and recreational fishing and want to eliminate any take of sustainable and viable ocean resources in most of these underwater parks.
The process already is here in the
I know this because I watched a replay of the recent Fish and Game Commission meeting at which the DFG listened to abalone divers make a case for a change in marine protected area boundaries that will lessen the impact on abalone divers. At this meeting, I heard DFG personnel tell the commissioners how many millions of dollars the entire network of marine protected areas will cost the state.
More on that in a bit.
The Marine Life Protection Act died a couple of justifiable deaths before preservationists – not conservationists, as they like to call themselves – gathered enough cash from the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, or RLFF, to raise it from its watery grave.
An explanation: The RLFF draws its money from various organizations that have close ties to rabid preservationists. That was Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton, a former officer in the Packard Foundation (one of the RLFF's deep pockets), patting himself on the back at the recent commission meeting, boasting how this wonderful public-private partnership between the DFG and the RLFF has kept this great farce going.
Thus far, the RLFF has given the DFG and the MLPA process more than $18 million since 2004 to keep this ocean land-grab going. The preservationists are paying for these parks and they're getting all they want.
And yet, there still is no clear plan to fund these restrictive parks.
It gets worse.
DFG personnel told the commissioners at their meeting last week that the entire network of marine protected areas will cost the state as much as $40 million a year for enforcement, public outreach and monitoring.
Let me write that again: $40 million a year. That's our taxpayer money.
There are whispers that the DFG will follow other state agencies and make 25 percent cuts in its operating budget as
So, where is the DFG going to get $40 million a year to keep its underwater
Gov. Schwarzenegger, with all due respect, your little ocean legacy plan really is an ocean money pit that preserves nothing but more debt, wastes taxpayers' money and ruins the lives of hard-working fishing families.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080907/news_1m7marine.html
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
UN Report on MPAs: "Paper parks"
A recent report by the United Nations cautions about the use of marine protected areas as a panacea for conservation efforts.
"MPAs are widely advocated and widely declared. But nearly all of them are paper parks (Mora et al 2006). They are legal, may have management staff, usually have detailed regulations governing their use, but there is little if any enforcement of regulations. The paper park syndrome exists for several reasons. Many coastal states have quite limited budgets, and adequately resourcing an environmental management department to administer MPAs simply does not happen."
"There also appears to be an over-reliance by managers on the no-take protected area concept. MPAs can manage activities that occur within their borders well, but MPAs have been particularly ineffective for managing fisheries in surrounding waters, or extrinsic disturbances such as coral bleaching, pollution, or invading species ( Jameson, et al.2002). Yet, much of the literature on protected areas is advocacy suggesting that a network of MPAs is practically all a nation needs to effectively manage its coastal waters. Of course, if numerous, well-managed, MPA networks existed, our coastal ocean would be in much better state than it is – mostly there are small, isolated, poorly managed MPAs. This management tool could be used much more effectively than at present, and with some additional research it should be possible to design networks of MPAs effectively (World Bank 2006)"
Read more of the report here...
"MPAs are widely advocated and widely declared. But nearly all of them are paper parks (Mora et al 2006). They are legal, may have management staff, usually have detailed regulations governing their use, but there is little if any enforcement of regulations. The paper park syndrome exists for several reasons. Many coastal states have quite limited budgets, and adequately resourcing an environmental management department to administer MPAs simply does not happen."
"There also appears to be an over-reliance by managers on the no-take protected area concept. MPAs can manage activities that occur within their borders well, but MPAs have been particularly ineffective for managing fisheries in surrounding waters, or extrinsic disturbances such as coral bleaching, pollution, or invading species ( Jameson, et al.2002). Yet, much of the literature on protected areas is advocacy suggesting that a network of MPAs is practically all a nation needs to effectively manage its coastal waters. Of course, if numerous, well-managed, MPA networks existed, our coastal ocean would be in much better state than it is – mostly there are small, isolated, poorly managed MPAs. This management tool could be used much more effectively than at present, and with some additional research it should be possible to design networks of MPAs effectively (World Bank 2006)"
Read more of the report here...
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Pt. Arena City Council Supports 2-XA
July 22, 2008
MLPA Initiative
c/o
Attention: Ken Wiseman
Melissa Miller-Henson
Susan Ashcraft
Steve Martarano
Stephen P. Wertz
Dear Blue Ribbon Task Force Members,
As we have previously stated,
§ We the City Council of Point Arena, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, value our Municipal Pier as a vital part of the City and as an access point for recreational and commercial boating and hope that the final Marine Protected Areas will permit continued boating operations, both for recreational users and the professionals that constitute our tiny fleet.
§ Many members of our community, including a number of particularly dedicated sport and professional fishermen, have been diligently involved in the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process and have advocated for those alternatives that appeared at each stage of the process which best achieved both the goals of the MLPA and also reduced the impact on socioeconomics, fishing tradition, heritage and safety.
At this point, as the Blue Ribbon Task Force sets forth before the California Department of Fish and Game yet another array of options - 1-3, 2XA, 4, an Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) which combines elements of the first three and No Action - the City of Point Arena continues to favor Proposal 2XA for reasons including:
1. Proposal 2XA protects 18.5% of the coastline from Alder Creek to Pigeon Point, the same amount of protected areas as the new Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) in the
2. Socioeconomic impact is not a consideration in the environmental impact report that is currently being prepared by the Department of Fish and Game, but it matters gravely to us. Reduced fishing opportunities have a direct impact on our already strained economy. 2/XA places one MPA near Point Arena whereas the preferred alternative option has 3 MPA areas to the north and south of Arena Cove. We believe there will be a negative impact resulting from increased fishing pressure in the open area in front of the Cove.
3.
4. Proposal 2/XA managed to come up with a solution for the Sea Ranch and
In addition, knowing that the BRTF deliberated at its April 22-23 meeting and recognized that the three proposals (1-3, 2XA and 4) all generally met the science of the master plan for the MPAs, the City of Point Arena City Council, speaking on behalf of our citizens and members of the surrounding community, urges in the strongest possible terms that, should the IPA be chosen, the following changes be implemented in the IPA:
While the size and location of the Point Arena SMCA in the IPA are agreeable, please return to the description of it in 2XA. Also, remove the Saunders Reef Conservation Area and remove Sea Lion Cove Conservation Area.
Yours respectfully,
Lauren Sinnott,
City of Point Arena Councilmembers
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Missing in Action: 500 Signatures for 2-XA
Commissioners
May 14th, 2008
Calif.
Ref: MLPA
I have spoke before you twice during the last 9 months in reference to
the MLPA process in the North Central Coast Study Region. Hopefully you
will remember my face, concerns and dedication to this process.
Unfortunately I will be out of state for the next 41/2 months and cannot
attend any of your meetings in regards to the MLPA process. Hope you take
the time to read about my concerns and evaluation of the process over the last 9 months.
After the April 22-3 meeting of the BRTF inSan Rafael
with tears in my eyes and total disbelief of the findings of the two day meeting. It was startling to find that the BRTF sent forth all three
proposals (1-3, 2XA & 4) along with the Proposed Alternative which they developed at the spur of a moment.
My main concern and one that should be yours is "What happened to the Public Comments" that have not been posted since April 3rd? Between April 3rd and the April 22-3rd meeting no public comment letters were given to the
Stakeholders, SAT or BRTF....or even posted on the State of California Fish & Game, MLPA website...where did they go? Did the I-Team fail in their support of the process and opinions of the people of this state? My and
your concern should be: "How did the BRTF make a final decision without seeing all the letters of support for all proposals?" I have been pondering this question since April 23rd and wondering why?
I do know that letters from the following (which I deem of importance) have STILL HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED: The Sea Ranch Association (which wanted
the 2XA proposal in front of their properties), The Mendocino County Fish & Game Advisory Council, The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, Mendocino County Farm Bureau, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Point Arena Fisherman's Group, Point Arena City Council, Fort Bragg City Council, Fort Bragg
Fisherman and over 500 signatures that were gathered and submitted by me alone........... All the above was in support of Proposal 2XA. It is unknown how many other letters are missing somewhere, never to be seen by the Commission or anyone. 2XA was the preferred proposal by the majority of the landowners and users of our coastline in Subregion 1 of theNorth Central Coast
Although I will be out of state, I will be available for direct contact
with you via email and or telephone (one on one or conference call). I feel that my concerns are valid and substantial. I would really be disappointed if this process ended up going against the major public input and support...and that would be for Proposal 2XA.
Thanks for your time, thanks for you concern with this process. As you know there are other concerns which we all share, the enforcement issue, the closures of park lands and the loss of enforcement near ex-facto reserves as under the private stewardship & ownerships. And the even bigger question...Will it work without overloading and over harvesting from un-zoned areas? Maybe we had better start small to start with?
Archer J. "Arch"Richardson
4th Generation, 130+ years of coastal stewardship
Stewarts Point , CA. 95480
Can be reached inAlaska
At 907-262-4256 and archerj@mcn.org
May 14th, 2008
Ref: MLPA
I have spoke before you twice during the last 9 months in reference to
the MLPA process in the North Central Coast Study Region. Hopefully you
will remember my face, concerns and dedication to this process.
Unfortunately I will be out of state for the next 41/2 months and cannot
attend any of your meetings in regards to the MLPA process. Hope you take
the time to read about my concerns and evaluation of the process over the last 9 months.
After the April 22-3 meeting of the BRTF in
with tears in my eyes and total disbelief of the findings of the two day meeting. It was startling to find that the BRTF sent forth all three
proposals (1-3, 2XA & 4) along with the Proposed Alternative which they developed at the spur of a moment.
My main concern and one that should be yours is "What happened to the Public Comments" that have not been posted since April 3rd? Between April 3rd and the April 22-3rd meeting no public comment letters were given to the
Stakeholders, SAT or BRTF....or even posted on the State of California Fish & Game, MLPA website...where did they go? Did the I-Team fail in their support of the process and opinions of the people of this state? My and
your concern should be: "How did the BRTF make a final decision without seeing all the letters of support for all proposals?" I have been pondering this question since April 23rd and wondering why?
I do know that letters from the following (which I deem of importance) have STILL HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED: The Sea Ranch Association (which wanted
the 2XA proposal in front of their properties), The Mendocino County Fish & Game Advisory Council, The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, Mendocino County Farm Bureau, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Point Arena Fisherman's Group, Point Arena City Council, Fort Bragg City Council, Fort Bragg
Fisherman and over 500 signatures that were gathered and submitted by me alone........... All the above was in support of Proposal 2XA. It is unknown how many other letters are missing somewhere, never to be seen by the Commission or anyone. 2XA was the preferred proposal by the majority of the landowners and users of our coastline in Subregion 1 of the
Although I will be out of state, I will be available for direct contact
with you via email and or telephone (one on one or conference call). I feel that my concerns are valid and substantial. I would really be disappointed if this process ended up going against the major public input and support...and that would be for Proposal 2XA.
Thanks for your time, thanks for you concern with this process. As you know there are other concerns which we all share, the enforcement issue, the closures of park lands and the loss of enforcement near ex-facto reserves as under the private stewardship & ownerships. And the even bigger question...Will it work without overloading and over harvesting from un-zoned areas? Maybe we had better start small to start with?
Archer J. "Arch"
4th Generation, 130+ years of coastal stewardship
Can be reached in
At 907-262-4256 and archerj@mcn.org
Monday, March 31, 2008
Putting MLPA in Perspective
Posted on MLPA Comments
To whom it may concern March 28 2008
I am writing today to support proposal 2XA. Not because I feel this is a proper or fair proposal but because of the three proposals given a choice proposal 2XA seems the best for the coastline and our devoted coastline owners. I have lived on the Southern Mendocino Coast all my life, my husband is fourth generation for our community. In my lifetime I have personally witnessed landowners protecting their coastline. As far back as I can remember I have images of Delia Hay parked outside her Mote Creek entrance north of Anchor Bay. Parked with her truck blocking the gate to the coastline entrance far to many tourists would love to have gained entrance to and taken their legal or not so legal amounts of abalone and trampled upon the shore us locals so proudly Cherish. In the case of Mote creek, Our State of California forced the Hay family into giving that property to them so they could develop four to five houses on the southern cliff, this was the trade the state felt proper in order for them to build on the coast. Well because of water issues those homes never got developed but that Coastal access was now owned by the State of California and is now lined with cars and trucks miles in each direction along with a full parking lot the State has provided. When is it lined you may ask. During abalone season , not weekends with families walking on the beach, not surfers enjoying the waves, no Abalone season, when there are so many trampling on the land and in the water it's amazing they find enough for them to keep returning. Delia Hay passed on in the 1980's, fortunately for her she doesn't have to see the effects that the State has had on her once cherished property that she so determinedly protected.
Another family I have witnessed my entire live has been the Ratcliff family North of Anchor Bay and South of Point Arena. They own an amazing stretch of coastline not to many locals have even walked on. It has always been fenced and privately protected by it's family members. I have always seen their family vehicles parked alone the highway or them personally walking the highway guarding their Private personal estuary. I say estuary for a stretch of land that large in the lifetime I have lived here, I attended school with their child and have family members that are very close to their entire generation of family, yet have we even walked the bluff or shoreline, no I have not. I have no right to, I do not own the property. I feel very strong about what people own remain their own, especially when in My lifetime I have always witnessed landowners taking far better care of their property than any one else could ever hope to do. I would also like to mention, The Ratcliff's entire acreage has always been immaculately maintained. The grass has always been mowed regularly, the fence always maintained, brush removed, dead trees tended to, all by the family. They do not have a home in the view of the ocean, they have not blocked or changed the landscape or view of this coastline in the 41 years I have been seeing it. This speaks volumes in my eyes, because in my lifetime, I have witnessed so many of our coast developed or poorly maintained and obstructed by new comers and State officials who govern our coast but do not live on it or Cherish it the way long time land owners can and do.
I can't even speak of the now State owned Stornetta Property north of Point Arena adjoining and connecting to the Point Arena Lighthouse property. I am long time friends with three generations of Stornetta's and I have to say I can't even drive North now and Look out at the duns or gaze out onto the beach or ocean from the highway one drive. I can't bear to see the massive amounts of people trampling on the once precious sacred land that the State of California couldn't manage to save and protect as the estuary it had been for over 100 years under the ownership of it's property owners .
So in reading the proposals 13, 4 and 2XA, I am sorry any of these have even been written, I can't believe we need to write letters to try and save the rights of our landowners. What year is it? What Country do we live in ? All that aside, haven't our Northern and Southerns Mendocino and Sonoma County Landowners prove with generations of years that they have maintained the beauty of their coastline? Every long time resident I have known that has owned their property for generations has always respected that land more than anyone claiming to be looking out for the people. Families depend on the plants, the sea life and the peacefulness of their own private property for their lifestyles.. I Can't bear to see my friends grandchildren not enjoy the property as their great grandparents have their entire life.
In closing a local issue came to mind, we have a local group pressuring landowners from Gualala to Anchor Bay to give up rights to enough space for this group to build walking paths along the coastline and Highway. I just drove around looking at the paths they have been developing, I was not surprised , but still saddened to see that you can't even see the path now, less than a year old. The grass has overtaken the gravel and chips laid in to the pathway and grown all around the wood boarder that is to define the path. It seams that people with good intentions for the good of the people just don't have to time or the Passion to follow through. I however noticed that on the first dry weekend of the year the long time landowners on the North Coast did manage to mow all their acres on both sides of the road, thank you Ratcliff family for always making the coast view as maintained and yet as natural as god made it ...
Kindly,
Brent and Kelly M. MasonJeremy Mason
James H. Lampman
Friday, March 28, 2008
Map Accuracy Is Not Important to MLPA Director
Arch Richardson wrote 3/24/08:
STAFF
ALL INVOLVED
Please be advised that there is a mayor problem with all proposal maps which have been printed in the past. In Subregion 1, North Central Coast Project of the MLPA in reference to The Sea Ranch Public Access Points.
There are a total of 8 access points on The Sea Ranch including Gualala County Park. Of which most are above the Stengel Beach Access. In the old Proposal JD and in the present Proposal 2XA the maps are very deceiving as the access point placement is wrong. For example: JD contained only 3 access point...but the map show 5. 2XA contains only 2 (Black Point & Pebble Beach)...but the map shows 4.
This is very deceiving and for the person who looks only at the maps and not the text, as a wrong decision or opinion of the proposal could be sought. I feel it necessary to change these maps at once, notify all involved that there is a MISTAKE ON ALL MAPS.
Please do not mislead the public!!! And especially The Sea Ranch property owners!
Looking forward to hearing your solution to this very important issue and how it will be solved to satisfy and notify ALL INVOLVED AND EFFECTED.
Ken Wiseman, MLPAI Director responded:
MLPA I TEAM
STAFF
ALL INVOLVED
Please be advised that there is a mayor problem with all proposal maps which have been printed in the past. In Subregion 1, North Central Coast Project of the MLPA in reference to The Sea Ranch Public Access Points.
There are a total of 8 access points on The Sea Ranch including Gualala County Park. Of which most are above the Stengel Beach Access. In the old Proposal JD and in the present Proposal 2XA the maps are very deceiving as the access point placement is wrong. For example: JD contained only 3 access point...but the map show 5. 2XA contains only 2 (Black Point & Pebble Beach)...but the map shows 4.
This is very deceiving and for the person who looks only at the maps and not the text, as a wrong decision or opinion of the proposal could be sought. I feel it necessary to change these maps at once, notify all involved that there is a MISTAKE ON ALL MAPS.
Please do not mislead the public!!! And especially The Sea Ranch property owners!
Looking forward to hearing your solution to this very important issue and how it will be solved to satisfy and notify ALL INVOLVED AND EFFECTED.
Ken Wiseman, MLPAI Director responded:
Dear Arch (aka "friendly and outside information source"),
We are looking into this, but preliniary review shows that the points in the data file are correctly placed. I think you are expecting a level of detail that we have never offered on these maps. The coastal access layer in our mapping software does not represent all access points. It only includes those published in the "California Coastal Access Guide" by the California Coastal Conservancy in 2002.
There are many trails and potential access sites at The Sea Ranch and other locations which are not shown on the maps, thus the detailed explanation in the templates which reflects the work of the stakeholder groups. You were there when they looked at very detailed maps with very specific choices made for each proposal.
We have no intention of misleading the public and will make sure all involved understand the issue of the scale of these maps. Just as you did not use these maps to explain the detail of your requested changes, we will not use them to describe the intricate details of each proposal. Thanks for your perspective, as it is always helpful in making sure we communicate as effectively and completely as possible.
Your favorite happy person,
Ken Wiseman
Executive Director
Monday, March 17, 2008
A View from the Sea Ranch
Letter to MLPA Comments from CE Brown of Sea Ranch. March 17, 2008
I appreciate and support the purpose of the MLPA to protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, but the unfortunate reality of what is presently happening in the process is the sacrifice of that goal in favor of political pressure for public access, while failing to improve upon existing protections. The Act itself makes no mention of public access, but that focus has been written into the Master Plan by staff at the request of stakeholders. In this area, private landowners have been excluded as stakeholders, including approximately 2,000 private landowners at The Sea Ranch, who are owners in common of 10 miles of coastline.
I’ve been an owner at The Sea Ranch for more than 20 years, and share the stewardship values of other private landowners along this beautiful
Here at The Sea Ranch we do have one significant difference from our neighboring private landowners, because public access across our private lands has been imposed by law. We have borne the costs and difficulties associated with that access in terms of increased needs for monitoring and security and difficulties associated with trespass and vandalism. We’ve borne these burdens with our own funds, in addition to paying high property taxes. As owners and stewards of these lands and the marine environments adjacent, we have done an admirable job of respectful use by owners and their invited guests and renters. That should continue, as it should on neighboring private lands. What is needed is appropriate control of the public’s taking of our abalone, which is the main source of the problems.
The proposed MPAs along the
I do understand that the MLPA process is limited to the size and spacing of protected areas, and that the stated goal is to use the best available science. But the “science” is woefully absent, without even the most basic studies of these Northern marine environments, and assumptions are being made based on studies of southerly areas, not appropriate for the unique climates and marine cultures of this ecological treasure on the North Coast.
Since the reserve designations are already set by law, we must work within those confines to create a solution that approximates common sense and wise stewardship. I urge you to shift the proposed MPA designations to areas of public access, and leave the marine interface on private lands in the care of the private owners who are remarkably effective and wise stewards of the resources, without public costs. The private owners have been operating de facto marine sanctuaries for generations, at their own cost.
Since our imposed public access here at The Sea Ranch creates a peculiar situation, my suggestion for a solution is to designate MPAs selectively at those points where the greatest public usage has depleted our ecosystems, and leave the rest of The Sea Ranch open for the use of the owners and their guests and renters. In addition, I suggest that the State Marine Preserve area we already have at Del Mar Point be confirmed to protect the seal rookery, tidepools and other resources that have been vigorously protected by The Sea Ranch community for nearly 40 years.
Before any MPAs are designated, appropriate site-specific baseline studies with measurable data, and replicable research designs, must be conducted. Otherwise, no outcome studies can be valid, and no scientific basis for policy choices can be in effect. Without appropriate biological studies we will have only a political process of choosing closure areas based on political pressure. Such a process cannot protect the natural wonders we have here, and cannot produce the laudable goals of the MLPA. The
It simply does not make sense to restrict the taking of marine resources adjacent to private lands which have been exceedingly well managed and produced vibrantly healthy ecosystems, while continuing to provide unmitigated public access to abalone and fishing in areas which have already suffered depletion. Restrict the depleted areas so that they can recover and the ecosystems can flourish again, and when measurable success has been achieved, then re-open those areas to public use, but with wiser restrictions in place.
Sincerely,
CE Brown
707 785-1957
cebrown@mcn.org
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Protect What Needs Protecting
Recent post to MLPAComments.
March 10,2008
To Whom It May Concern:
I respectively submit, for your consideration, this letter in regards to creating State Marine Conservation Areas and State Marine Reserves. I have been a resident of this area (Mendocino/Sonoma Coast) for over 55 years and have, during that time, fished the waters from Elk to Stewarts Point.
It does not make sense to me that you are considering creating SMCAs ad SMRs along private properties that have been held by families for generatios and gererations. It seems that these coastal areas are being monitored and taken care of quite adequately by the respective land owners. My suggestion is that you protect and try to "bring back" the resources in the areas that have been overused and over fished. One area, in particular, that I will suggest is the whole coastal area fronting The Sea Ranch. My wife and I have owned property on The Sea Ranch for over 20 years. As a property owner I feel that this would be the obvious area to protect and preserve as it would tie in with The Sea Ranch philosophy (i.e. living lightly on the land).
Thank your for your consideration.
Clark E. Beall
41569 Hatchway
The Sea Ranch, CA 95497
March 10,2008
To Whom It May Concern:
I respectively submit, for your consideration, this letter in regards to creating State Marine Conservation Areas and State Marine Reserves. I have been a resident of this area (Mendocino/Sonoma Coast) for over 55 years and have, during that time, fished the waters from Elk to Stewarts Point.
It does not make sense to me that you are considering creating SMCAs ad SMRs along private properties that have been held by families for generatios and gererations. It seems that these coastal areas are being monitored and taken care of quite adequately by the respective land owners. My suggestion is that you protect and try to "bring back" the resources in the areas that have been overused and over fished. One area, in particular, that I will suggest is the whole coastal area fronting The Sea Ranch. My wife and I have owned property on The Sea Ranch for over 20 years. As a property owner I feel that this would be the obvious area to protect and preserve as it would tie in with The Sea Ranch philosophy (i.e. living lightly on the land).
Thank your for your consideration.
Clark E. Beall
41569 Hatchway
The Sea Ranch, CA 95497
Makes No Sense
ICO Fence Post February 29
Editor:
My parents with my brother and I moved to Point Arena in 1949. We would go with Pop “rock picking” abalone and I remember how Pop had to work hard wading among the rocks to find legal-sized abalone.
I also remember how much better it was on the Pedretti and Stornetta ranches where we were often invited to pick abalone and to fish from the rocks.
The reason it was so good was that so few people were allowed by the landowners to fish and pick abalone on their property.
In essence, landowners like the Richarsons, Ratcliffs, Stornettas, Pedrettis, Leporis, and others were operating their own marine sanctuaries. Their families and friends didn’t take enough fish and abalone to notice. They constantly repaired fences damaged by trespassers, patrolled their properties to chase away poachers, and were far more effective, with no cost to taxpayers, than an army of game wardens.
The difference a change from private to public access can make is obvious on the Stornetta property turned over to the Bureau of Land Management. Abalone were rapidly depleted and the land trashed. What the Stornettas did without cost to taxpayers, the government can’t afford.
Now the public wants fishing restricted on private lands, and not on public. This makes no sense.
The private owners take very little from the ocean resources, pay large property tax bills, and spend their own money to prevent or reduce damage caused by the public. Restricting them on their own property would deprive them of valuable property rights they have enjoyed, and paid taxes on, for a very long time.
It would make more sense to place restrictions primarily on areas now open to the public, because those are the areas that have suffered the most over the years.
Major Michael B. Combs
Gualala
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)