Darrell Ticehurst/Fisheries Issues
.jpg)
PSO Sends an Army of Facts to F&G Commission
Apr. 9 2009, 8:55 AM
Apr. 9 2009, 8:55 AM
The California Department of Fish and Game Commission got to send a strong message and a good civics lesson today when the PSO read into the record a letter to them explaining just how much they have got it wrong in implementing the MLPA. The letter starts by quoting Secretary Chrisman when the MLPA effort was canceled in 2004 for a lack of funding: “This is not about supporting the program,'' Chrisman said. ``It is about simply not having enough staff or money to do the job right.'' Now F&G says it will cost some $34 million for enforcement and monitoring and nobody has the money. The PSO nailed it when they said: “Respectfully, we submit to you that we still do not have enough staff or money to do the job right and this is too important to too many to get wrong.”
The letter goes on to state: “Some have suggested to the PSO that if we disagree with the MLPA, then we should change the law. On the contrary, facts are stubborn things and all we ask is that the statute be implemented as it is written – not on an arbitrary ‘pick and choose’ selective basis as has occurred in the Central Coast study area.” Indeed the law demands that there be scientific monitoring and annual reviews of Marine Protected Areas, and if they don’t have those in place then they aren’t authorized to establish them.
The letter goes on to state that continuing to pursue the establishment of MPA’s without the funding for monitoring and enforcement invites litigation. In fact, it seems certain that passing the proposed North Central MPAs is in direct violation of the act now that the funding issues are on the table.
The PSO letter concludes with this: “Now we have been accused of trying to abruptly end this program. On the contrary, we’re just trying to ensure that the state fulfills a commitment to us that the MLPA would be implemented in a fair, transparent, science-based fashion. We’ve always known that our membership would bear the brunt of the financial losses caused by fishing prohibitions, but we agreed to engage in the process based on the promise of scientific research and knowledge that would benefit our natural ocean resources. We have not reneged on our commitment to the process – the state has.
Further, it’s been suggested that MPAs are needed immediately in order to protect ailing fish populations. However, in the decade since the MLPA was enacted, California's fisheries have been recovering without marine protected areas, as is evidenced in groundfish stock assessments. As a matter of fact, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, as of the end of 2008 overfishing has ended in all but two Pacific stocks – yellowfin and bigeye tuna, which would not benefit from MPAs. And the efforts of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the CA Department of Fish and Game to protect and rebuild various groundfish stocks are working. With the exception of salmon, which has its own set of challenges and have been deemed to not benefit from MPAs, we are no longer in danger of a fisheries crisis in California. Specifically, among those fishes likely to benefit from MPAs, none of the Pacific Coast groundfish stocks are experiencing overfishing in accordance with the Magnuson Stevens National Standard 1 requirement that ‘conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing.’ Consequently, all of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's groundfish management measures ‘reflect harvest rates below the overfishing threshold and include precautionary reductions to rebuild overfished stocks as soon as practicable..."
I hope the Commission pays attention. The PSO has very clearly laid out that the process is way off target and doesn’t have the funding to continue.
The letter goes on to state that continuing to pursue the establishment of MPA’s without the funding for monitoring and enforcement invites litigation. In fact, it seems certain that passing the proposed North Central MPAs is in direct violation of the act now that the funding issues are on the table.
The PSO letter concludes with this: “Now we have been accused of trying to abruptly end this program. On the contrary, we’re just trying to ensure that the state fulfills a commitment to us that the MLPA would be implemented in a fair, transparent, science-based fashion. We’ve always known that our membership would bear the brunt of the financial losses caused by fishing prohibitions, but we agreed to engage in the process based on the promise of scientific research and knowledge that would benefit our natural ocean resources. We have not reneged on our commitment to the process – the state has.
Further, it’s been suggested that MPAs are needed immediately in order to protect ailing fish populations. However, in the decade since the MLPA was enacted, California's fisheries have been recovering without marine protected areas, as is evidenced in groundfish stock assessments. As a matter of fact, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, as of the end of 2008 overfishing has ended in all but two Pacific stocks – yellowfin and bigeye tuna, which would not benefit from MPAs. And the efforts of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the CA Department of Fish and Game to protect and rebuild various groundfish stocks are working. With the exception of salmon, which has its own set of challenges and have been deemed to not benefit from MPAs, we are no longer in danger of a fisheries crisis in California. Specifically, among those fishes likely to benefit from MPAs, none of the Pacific Coast groundfish stocks are experiencing overfishing in accordance with the Magnuson Stevens National Standard 1 requirement that ‘conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing.’ Consequently, all of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's groundfish management measures ‘reflect harvest rates below the overfishing threshold and include precautionary reductions to rebuild overfished stocks as soon as practicable..."
I hope the Commission pays attention. The PSO has very clearly laid out that the process is way off target and doesn’t have the funding to continue.
Mark Capra
April 18, 2009, 8:17 am
Thanks again Darrell...now if we can just get atricles like the above published in the "regular" media the people could learn the "rest of the story"...keep up the good work and thanks to PCS for giving you the platform...
April 18, 2009, 8:17 am
Thanks again Darrell...now if we can just get atricles like the above published in the "regular" media the people could learn the "rest of the story"...keep up the good work and thanks to PCS for giving you the platform...
Jim Volberding
April 14, 2009, 12:43 pm
Glad you put this up on the blog. It's time for those that influenced the MLPA be held accountable for the funding balloon. The state needs to fulfill
their part or stop.
April 14, 2009, 12:43 pm
Glad you put this up on the blog. It's time for those that influenced the MLPA be held accountable for the funding balloon. The state needs to fulfill
their part or stop.
Bob O'Connor
April 14, 2009, 9:20 am
Thanks again for this blog. I wonder if Californian voters in 2009 would continue to support this with the 2009 numbers?
April 14, 2009, 9:20 am
Thanks again for this blog. I wonder if Californian voters in 2009 would continue to support this with the 2009 numbers?
Steven Stutesman
April 9, 2009, 11:58 am
I sure hope that we dont have to sue to get this right. I do want to hear more on this subject, so keep the information comming.
April 9, 2009, 11:58 am
I sure hope that we dont have to sue to get this right. I do want to hear more on this subject, so keep the information comming.
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated by the administrators.All fields are required.
April 18, 2009, 11:47 am
Thanks again Darrell for bringing the obvious "out in the open"...now if only the mainstream media can pick up on it...and thanks to PCS for giving you the platform ...