Bob Fletcher
During its March 3 meeting, with one simple vote, California’s Fish and Game Commission once again betrayed the public trust and exposed the biased nature of the state’s Marine Life Protection Act planning and implementation process.
In a 3-2 vote, the commission eliminated three proposals submitted by a group of citizens, the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group, which were the product of thousands of hours of research and planning, and took more than a year to develop.
The commission voted to keep in consideration only the alternative created by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, effectively terminating consideration of the three proposals created by citizens selected to participate in the process. This includes a plan (Proposal 2) that is supported by the recreational fishing and boating communities throughout Southern California and the state. This plan meets the required scientific standards while at the same time reducing the size and extent of proposed no-fishing zones, maintaining access to healthy fisheries and jobs.
The original intent of the MLPA, passed in 1999, was to re-evaluate and redesign existing marine protected areas to increase ocean conservation. These areas provide an additional, but potentially unnecessary, layer of resource protection by restricting or prohibiting recreational and commercial fishing.
Implementation of the MLPA was delayed for years by a lack of funding. Although ocean habitat and fisheries have decidedly improved, the state and the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation partnered to get the process moving. This foundation has invested millions of dollars establishing an extensive system of protected areas along the coast. That left it up to California citizens to find funding to scientifically monitor and enforce the new marine protected areas at an estimated cost of $30 million to $40 million annually.
What is driving this headlong attempt to complete the MLPA process? The answer is simple. Our state does not have the financial resources to evaluate all four South Coast proposals, and instead of maintaining a fair playing field for all the proposals, the commission’s solution was to eliminate everything but the task force proposal.
In addition, the foundation wants the entire process completed by the end of this year – an arbitrary, political deadline – and well before decision-makers in Sacramento finally realize the state does not have the money to fairly and thoroughly implement a program that could do significant economic harm to coastal communities.
The commission’s decision to single out the task force proposal and not give stakeholder proposals an opportunity for review is an outrage and a decision with consequences we will all regret.
The March 3 vote demonstrates a blatant disregard for promises and commitments for a fair and open process, and is yet another among biased decisions that have plagued this process.
For example, the task force created its preferred proposal over the course of two meetings in a closed-door process that sport-fishing representatives contend was rife with backroom deals and biased decision-making.
During the commissioners’ discussion, a large body of testimony, both written and by way of video clips, clearly showed the bias inherent in the task force.
At one point, Commissioner Richard Rogers even lectured the public on the fact that the task force, as an advisory body to the commission, was exempt from provisions of state open-meeting laws.
Setting aside that this legal question has yet to be resolved, the state signed a memorandum of understanding with the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation stating that implementation would be done in accordance with open-meeting laws.
The idea of using closed areas as a tool in fisheries management is not new, has value in some situations and is being used elsewhere in the country. People charged with managing California’s MLPA implementation co-opted the process and are forcing numerous, extensive no-fishing zones on recreational and commercial fishing industries already suffering from the economic downturn and restrictive fisheries regulations.
It comes as no surprise that California is being used throughout the country as an example of what not to do when it comes to fisheries management. A thorough investigation of these allegations by agencies or individuals with no stake in the outcome of the MLPA should be conducted. This investigation needs to take place sooner rather than later, as the economic blow to the state’s coastal communities has already begun.