From the Los Angeles Times-The Marine Life Protection Act mess

[Spike]

Unless I'm mistaken, our stakeholder representatives sacrificed the right of the full scope of communicating this process to us...to represent us in this process.  Read this and get mad!  Then act!

Blowback
The Marine Life Protection Act mess
Proposed fishing reserves under the Marine Life Protection Act would be
disastrous for California.

By Dick Giuliani

March 25, 2009

I have followed from its inception the ongoing Marine Life Protection Act
process that was the subject of a March 20 article by Louis Sahagun. I have
heard repeatedly from MLPA advocates that we are amicable groups seeking the
same goals of preservation of the resource. Let me assure you all, in no
uncertain terms, this is not an amicable process. This is an adversarial
process in which we seek to maintain our rights to fish in California
waters, while the MLPA backers seek to eliminate as much productive fishing
area as they can under the fallacious argument that it would protect the
resource. They have also stated that the economic impact of closures is
speculative, but I submit the following thoughts.

The state of California has just passed a $100-billion budget that will not
be enough to get us through the current economic crisis, yet the MLPA
advocates seek to eliminate a multibillion-dollar industry with callous
disregard for the impact on tax revenues derived from all sources related to
the fishing industry. Rentals and sales of boats, trailers, equipment,
fishing tackle and fuel, as well as boat maintenance, berthing and launch
fees, all generate tax revenue for the state of California. The decline in
business revenue and the resulting loss of jobs would be devastating at a
time when the state unemployment rate is above 10%. Last year at least six
tackle stores either went bankrupt or had to close their doors. Considering
the current economic climate, we cannot afford the loss of jobs or the
tremendous loss of state tax revenue resulting from fishing closures. We all
surely understand that the state of California cannot and will not abide the
loss of tax revenue from the sources listed above. All taxpayers, not just
those who enjoy outdoor sports and entertainment, would have to pay more to
replace the revenue lost as a result of the MLPA closures.

While the state of California would lose millions from the closures, UC
Santa Barbara and others would no doubt receive millions in federal or state
grants to continue studying this issue. Advocates of the closures have
stated there would be no financial problems caused by carrying out the
marine reserve plan, as their groups have private sources of funding. (The
agenda and goal of the sources of this private funding are certainly
suspect.) The initial 1999 estimate for scientific monitoring, public
outreach and enforcement was $250,000 annually. That figure is now expected
to approach $35 million per year, and many believe this estimate may be far
short of the actual funds needed. We can also be assured that these costs
will increase dramatically, as they do for all government programs. In
addition, this figure may only apply to the closures along the North and
Central coasts. These financial projections are now correctly being
challenged by state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter).

My friends, we have reached an impasse, and if we are to arrest this
draconian process of massive closures, we must seek alternatives to this
process as currently conducted. Another thing to consider is that, to my
knowledge, no closures in the past have ever been reversed. I believe only
the Legislature can curtail this agenda, and it is incumbent upon each and
every one of us to admonish our lawmakers to, if not eliminate the MLPA, at
least postpone the implementation until such time as the state's fiscal
situation improves.

Dick Giuliani is a retiree and recreational fisherman from Eagle Rock who
works part-time in a tackle shop.

[Spike]

I would like to volunteer to memorize this editorial and with the support of 999 others who care, to recite it at the entrance of every West Marine, tackle and kayak shop in the state.  I'll pay for the bullhorn and fliers with a copy of the text plus action information.  On weekends during high traffic hours.  Press releases to all the media contacts.

Tackle shops, at least most of them, donate to sportfishing lobbying groups to help protect our interests.  Where are the kayak manufacturers, chandleries and periphery profiteers in all of this?  Are they just waiting until this new sales section of kayak anglers peters out?  That makes sense for some since their previous clientelle is made up of more MLPA supporters than anglers and that's who they'll have to fall back on when our fishing access is OUTLAWED.

There is a growing middle-ground in the trend towards a greener fishing society I see in companies like REI.  It's a weak section. We need to grasp it fast because a loud section of their customer base are just as inclined to support MLPA over recreational angling.