Darrell Ticehurst/Fisheries Issues
.jpg)
The Fix Was In--IPA Passes
Aug. 11 2009, 12:20 PM
Aug. 11 2009, 12:20 PM
Corruption, Politics and Wading Through the Morass
What a mixed bag this whole MLPA process is. The RLFF funding clearly is biasing the entire process and the North Central Coast was no exception: the majority of the scientists that were chosen were from the environmental camp and were clearly looking for ways to shut down fishing wherever they could, the BRTF was stacked against anglers with most of the members clearly sympathizing with every environmental proposal, and F&G analysis never pointed out the flaws that should have been obvious to anyone experienced in fishery management. Yet despite these obstacles the two primary options that were presented to the Fish and Game Commission last week actually had some influence from recreational anglers, kayakers and divers. Sure it could have been better, 2XA should have been the option selected, after all it was certainly a more intelligent option, better designed, more environmentally friendly, and had the least impact on recreational use of the area. But the fix was in and the Governor and Secretary Chrisman got their enviro ticket punched the dirty way, and the IPA option was approved.
What a mixed bag this whole MLPA process is. The RLFF funding clearly is biasing the entire process and the North Central Coast was no exception: the majority of the scientists that were chosen were from the environmental camp and were clearly looking for ways to shut down fishing wherever they could, the BRTF was stacked against anglers with most of the members clearly sympathizing with every environmental proposal, and F&G analysis never pointed out the flaws that should have been obvious to anyone experienced in fishery management. Yet despite these obstacles the two primary options that were presented to the Fish and Game Commission last week actually had some influence from recreational anglers, kayakers and divers. Sure it could have been better, 2XA should have been the option selected, after all it was certainly a more intelligent option, better designed, more environmentally friendly, and had the least impact on recreational use of the area. But the fix was in and the Governor and Secretary Chrisman got their enviro ticket punched the dirty way, and the IPA option was approved.
The shining light in this process was the RSG (Regional Stakeholder Group). In particular, RSG member Ben Sleeter’s expertise in understanding habitat and being able to communicate what drawing lines on maps meant to coastal communities’ economics and to a recreational community that loves the ocean, enabled some modicum of common sense to slip into the options forwarded to the F&G Commission. Without that hard work and intensity on the RSG by Ben and many other members, and the enormous continuing political support of the PSO, there is little doubt that the options would have been totally intolerable.
Governor Schwarzenegger’s dirty politics in forcing out swing vote Commissioner Gustafson at the last minute, and his even more stunning swift action in appointing Donald Benninghoven to replace her just hours before the vote showed that he is clearly the enemy of anyone who would like to enjoy the ocean. Gustafson’s “resignation” occurred, it is suspected, when she came to believe that option 2XA was the best choice over the IPA choice. This dirty political move may have gotten the governor and Chrisman some points with the runaway enviros, but make no mistake, he is not the friend of anglers, divers, or the coastal communities that depend upon ocean recreation to bolster their economy.
Ugh! The politics of the MLPA make me sick, frustrated, tired of political gamesmanship, and discouraged with this entire corrupt process. I always said that I would support this process so long as science drove the results, but that is clearly not the case. Want more proof? Look at the failure of Commissioner Sutton to recuse himself from the voting where he has a major conflict of interest. This is one of the more egregious examples of the stacked deck we are dealing with. Clearly it is the massively funded RLFF and their anti fishing agenda that is in charge. My hope is that Sen. Dean Flores will call for a review of this whole sordid mess in the Senate Oversight Committee, especially when there is nobody in a position of responsibility that thinks that the state can afford this right now, including our governor.
However, we did indeed have some impact on the North Central Coast MLPA. As I said, the RSG, with the PSO’s political support clearly modified and watered down the most draconian runaway enviro proposals which certainly would have been approved without their participation. The politics stink, and the playing field is definitely tilted, but by diligent and forceful effort we are having some impact. We have to stay in the game even though it is miserable and frustrating or the result will be intolerably worse than you can imagine. Just remember what is going on the next time you vote.
Darrell
August 26, 2009, 9:11 am
Sorry Steve, you seem to have gotten a distorted view of things. You should have been here in Northern California during the process if you wanted to see what really happened.
August 26, 2009, 9:11 am
Sorry Steve, you seem to have gotten a distorted view of things. You should have been here in Northern California during the process if you wanted to see what really happened.
Steve Mras
August 24, 2009, 10:07 pm
Darrel,
I'm a fisherman. I'm not from the other side. The real problem is that it's taken you and your colleagues this long to realize that the MLPA is a political process. I thought you of all people were much smarter than this.
1. Gustafson's resignation itself was not a political move, it was based on a technicality of dual public appointments which were exposed by the expanded background checks. Cindy never tipped her hand on the IPA vs 2XA issue and she halted the Kellog proposed letter to the the Governor or the Legislature. Your lobbyist is so off on this, but that's not a surprise. See after he met with Susan Golding (former BRTF Chair), he came back telling UASC that she was "on our side". That was laughable, as she was as green as they come. At the same time UASC was in Lobbying Mike Chrisman to have her termed off the BRTF because she had served two terms already. In the end she proved such an embarrassment, Chrisman removed her anyway.
2. CCFC may have filed the lawsuit against Sutton, but Coastside's imprint is all over it. One only needed to read the anti-Julie Packard posts all over the old Coastside website to see that. Also, Bob Franko and other Coastsiders were posting on other websites encouraging letter writing campaigns on the Mike Sutton matter. Again, Coastside's imprint is all over this, so don't try to lay it off on CCFC simply because they filed the lawsuit.
3. Chrisman tries to achieve balance in his appointments. What explains Dan Richard's appointment to the Commission (aside from the mandatory campaign donation estimated at $250K to get such an appointment)? If he wanted to assure an MLPA outcome, Richards would have never been appointed. Really, when you look at the Commission makeup you have Kellog who's a hunter. Richards is a hunter. Rogers is diver/fisherman. Sutton is both a hunter and fisherman, albeit with an enviro slant. Gustafson was the only Commissioner who neither hunted nor fished. She was a career beaurocrat/politician. Much as you and Coastside hate Sutton, when the motion came up on Sea Lion Cove being changed from a reserve to a conservation area, he initially opposed it, citing DFG data supporting his position. But the DFG corrected him on the data he was basing his decision on and he moved off the issue and supported Sea Lion cove becoming just a conservation area. If his so-called conflict of interest would have shown trough it was on that motion as Sea Lion Cove was the enviro's baby.
4. Thanks for finally admitting that Coastside achieved 90% of 2-XA being included in the IPA. In a political process that is a huge victory, as no one gets 100% of what they wanted in a political process. That result reflects working within the process and a strategy that maximized the end result while working within the SAT Guidelines. Where those guidelines did not make sense, lobbying efforts got them altered as in the case of trolling for salmon in waters 50 meters or deeper. Your message here is consistent with UASC's message which was to stay involved in the process and that is not just at the RSG level, but also the political level, (albeit with an accurate read of the politics derived from years of experience). PSO states in the current issue of PCS that they are working within the process, but their actions fighting the process tell the real story. I can imagine that the fishing RSG representatives face an impossible task on the front line when they are getting virtually no lobbying support from their leaders up above. I've seen them posting on websites that they've tried to get fishery management measures incorporated into MPA designs, but they've been rebuffed by the SAT. Of course they have, the only thing that would sway the SAT is a lobbying effort directed at the BRTF and the MLPAI, but we know that is not happening.
So you've admitted that Coastside got 90% of what they wanted. The only thing you did not get impacted abalone divers. Recall that the abalone divers were largely represented by RFA, the same RFA which sent a letter to the Governor indicating they would sit out the North Central Process in protest over the Central California result. This kinda suggests that staying involved in the process in a positive way is important. Admit it, there's no way you could have achieved a 90% result otherwise. Yet your own Ben Sleeter is out there posting otherwise, suggesting that "If you decide to participate given what has happened now twice you deserve what you get.":
Ben Sleeter wrote:
Opinion on MLPA outcome
As most of you know I spent a lot of time over the past 4-5 years working on the MLPA, first as an alternate RSG member and SIG member for the Central Coast and then most recently as a member of the RSG for the North Central Coast. With the Commissions final decision to adopt the IPA I felt I should probably give one last note to you guys about how I see this process. So here goes.
Here is what I "think" happened:
Cindy Gustafson, president of the Commission, was ready to either support 2XA or vote to suspend implementation of MLPA (more likely) until the state had the necessary funds to implement it according to the law. This would have resulted in a 3-2 vote to suspend the process, something Mike Chrisman (Sec. for Resources) was not about to allow. More than likely Gustafson was asked to resign or risk hurting any future political ambitions she may have. Rather than stand up based on her convictions she quit and left the Commission with only four members although the plan was made to bring in a "ringer" right before the meeting so as to fly under the radar as much as possible. That plan was executed to near perfection. Chrisman appointed the lap dog Don Benninghoven who actually helped create the IPA - the very plan he was brought in to now adopt. I hand it to these professional politicians. They executed this strategy perfectly. The whole legal issue should be explored given a court ruled that the seperation of the Commission is what made the special interest funding OK. Well so much for that! We can no say that the RLFF paid directly for the outcome they wanted.
In regards to the outcome, the IPA was not all that different form 2XA from Bodega Bay south. In one case (Fitzgerald), we were able to actually get a slightly better outcome due to some manipulation during the final BRTF meeting. There were relatively minor issues, like being able to make bait, that 2XA dealt with in a comprehensive and equitable way where as the goal of the IPA was to restrict fishing in any way possible no matter how small. Really petty things actually that were very typical of the petty nature of the idiots like Samantha Murray of The Ocean Conservancy that were driving the IPA. However, north of Bodega is a totally different story. I wont get into all the details of the difference between the plans - that should be clear by now - but the north coast got absolutely destroyed, especially the abalone fishery. It is conceivable that the abalone fishery could all but disappear in the next 10-20 years due to the huge shift of effort that is sure to take place due to these closures. And the pathetic thing is that 2XA had the perfect solution for this area. But this was a case where we should have learned from history. In the Central Coast process the greatest impact was dropped on the area with the fewest people (Morro Bay). The same thing transpired here. It is simply a function of pathetic spineless amateurish politicians taking the easy way out. While abalone is one thing, another thing to keep in mind is the impact to the Bodega sportfishing fleet that used the area from Horseshoe Cove and above as some of the best rockfish grounds. That is gone. Kayak anglers also used this area a lot as well. Again, its gone - forever. I can not understate the huge inequity involved with this decision. I know "we" do not have a lot of people up there but I never saw that as meaning much of anything. I always considered it my responsibility to advocate for all recreation anglers no matter the size of their community. So yeah, I take this personally.
Last of all, let me finish by saying that any attempt to spin the outcome of this decision as anything remotely positive is doing a huge disservice to recreational fishermen throughout the state. The manipulation of the "process" was so blatant, arrogant, and appalling, that it should send clear signals about how the state values our input into such public processes. It should also serve as a beaming sign to fishermen in the South, North and the Bay, that participation serves no useful objective. It was my hope that if we participated in good faith that we would be treated as partners. Of course it was politically more complex than that but that was my overarching thinking. Well, I can say for certain that I was wrong. We were nothing but placeholders in a fixed game. Were we able to get some things to go our way? Sure. Could they have been worse? Perhaps. But that hardly justifies our participation. I feel strongly that the only real power we ever had was our participation. By sitting at the table we validated the process plain and simple. To continue to sit at the table, in spite of the Central and North Central Coast outcomes, is just plain crazy. At some point we have to take a real stand and that wont happen by trying to find the single pebble of gold in a mountain of ****. Given the way the process at the end was manipulated my opinion is that we simply ignore the outcome of any/all of these processes. Perhaps then these arrogant ******** running this process will realize they have only managed to do the one thing they set out to fix - they created nothing but a bunch of lines on a map and paper parks. Thats how I will go about it anyway. If you decide to participate given what has happened now twice you deserve what you get.
Darrell, here's the problem. You got 90% of what you bargained for in the North Central Process. Before the change at Sea Lion Cove, it was 80%. There was very little downside for you up there when you and ASA pushed out the UASC people who had 12 years of lobbying experience in California and inserted ASA with virtually none. There was no downside for you and ASA to launch the attack strategy. The fisherman love to fight, but they ignore the fact that the odds of success in such a strategy are against them. So effectively, this move had virtually no downside for Coastside in North Central, but it has an incredibly huge downside risk in SoCal. Remember, the 90% result reflected working within the process and not just at the RSG level, but at the political level. Again, Ken Wiseman testified that lobbying at the BRTF and MLPAI level is not happening in the SoCal process. That is a sure sign of not working within the process and that is how Coastside and ASA have effectively thrown SoCal's fishing interests under the bus.
5. It is complete BS that ASA has not been soliciting money. We know for a fact that they solicited the machinists union in DC for money to fight the MLPA arguing that it would cost jobs. We know that because the machinist union rep in DC contacted their lobbyist in Sacramento for input on this. That lobbyist represents most all of the unions in Sacramento matters and formerly represented UASC and currently represents Sportfishing Conservancy ("SportCon"), the new organization formed by Tom Raftican and my wife. This is the same lobbyist that ASA refused to hire when they came into California at your invitation. You know what SportCon's lobbyist told the machinist union in DC? He told him to ask ASA if SAC was willing unionize. As one can imagine, that fund raising effort on the part of ASA died immediately. Tis a small world and reality bites. LOL!
6. Had ASA approached the MLPA in a positive manner, working within the process, just maybe Chrisman would have a different view of them. Nothing like being an unwanted, obnoxious guest at a process you weren't invited to. Problem is, despite ASA's beliefs that their fight will actually save us, they are really steering us toward a suboptimal outcome in SoCal, just as what occurred in the Central California Process where the fisherman fought the entire way. It's about time the fishermen wise up and see the forest from the trees.
Right now the enviros are actually laughing at the fishermen and their strategy. After the fisherman achieved a 90% result in the North Central process, the enviros came down here to SoCal ready to negotiate in good faith. Right out of the gate the fishermen chose a fight strategy. The enviros can't believe that the fisherman chose to revert to the strategy used in Central Cal where they faired so poorly. Afterall, as you say, the process is rigged. But if it was, how could you have achieved 90% of what you wanted?
There is no question now, based on the ASA/PSO strategy, that our outcome here in SoCal will be worse than North Central's. That is my main concern (yet you say I'm on the other side). The enviros intended to negotiate in good faith, but now there is no one they will negotiate with as they've been pushed out and they do not trust ASA/PSO. Why should they trust them when all they've done is attack everything that is the MLPA. Keep in mind the MLPA is the law and it will be implemented regardless of what ASA does. That was never in question, despite ASA's beliefs or efforts. They are simply ignorant of the politics here in California and we can thank them for the inevitable suboptimal result in SoCal.
Thank you for conversing on this. No thanks to your for ruining it for us in SoCal.
Steve
August 24, 2009, 10:07 pm
Darrel,
I'm a fisherman. I'm not from the other side. The real problem is that it's taken you and your colleagues this long to realize that the MLPA is a political process. I thought you of all people were much smarter than this.
1. Gustafson's resignation itself was not a political move, it was based on a technicality of dual public appointments which were exposed by the expanded background checks. Cindy never tipped her hand on the IPA vs 2XA issue and she halted the Kellog proposed letter to the the Governor or the Legislature. Your lobbyist is so off on this, but that's not a surprise. See after he met with Susan Golding (former BRTF Chair), he came back telling UASC that she was "on our side". That was laughable, as she was as green as they come. At the same time UASC was in Lobbying Mike Chrisman to have her termed off the BRTF because she had served two terms already. In the end she proved such an embarrassment, Chrisman removed her anyway.
2. CCFC may have filed the lawsuit against Sutton, but Coastside's imprint is all over it. One only needed to read the anti-Julie Packard posts all over the old Coastside website to see that. Also, Bob Franko and other Coastsiders were posting on other websites encouraging letter writing campaigns on the Mike Sutton matter. Again, Coastside's imprint is all over this, so don't try to lay it off on CCFC simply because they filed the lawsuit.
3. Chrisman tries to achieve balance in his appointments. What explains Dan Richard's appointment to the Commission (aside from the mandatory campaign donation estimated at $250K to get such an appointment)? If he wanted to assure an MLPA outcome, Richards would have never been appointed. Really, when you look at the Commission makeup you have Kellog who's a hunter. Richards is a hunter. Rogers is diver/fisherman. Sutton is both a hunter and fisherman, albeit with an enviro slant. Gustafson was the only Commissioner who neither hunted nor fished. She was a career beaurocrat/politician. Much as you and Coastside hate Sutton, when the motion came up on Sea Lion Cove being changed from a reserve to a conservation area, he initially opposed it, citing DFG data supporting his position. But the DFG corrected him on the data he was basing his decision on and he moved off the issue and supported Sea Lion cove becoming just a conservation area. If his so-called conflict of interest would have shown trough it was on that motion as Sea Lion Cove was the enviro's baby.
4. Thanks for finally admitting that Coastside achieved 90% of 2-XA being included in the IPA. In a political process that is a huge victory, as no one gets 100% of what they wanted in a political process. That result reflects working within the process and a strategy that maximized the end result while working within the SAT Guidelines. Where those guidelines did not make sense, lobbying efforts got them altered as in the case of trolling for salmon in waters 50 meters or deeper. Your message here is consistent with UASC's message which was to stay involved in the process and that is not just at the RSG level, but also the political level, (albeit with an accurate read of the politics derived from years of experience). PSO states in the current issue of PCS that they are working within the process, but their actions fighting the process tell the real story. I can imagine that the fishing RSG representatives face an impossible task on the front line when they are getting virtually no lobbying support from their leaders up above. I've seen them posting on websites that they've tried to get fishery management measures incorporated into MPA designs, but they've been rebuffed by the SAT. Of course they have, the only thing that would sway the SAT is a lobbying effort directed at the BRTF and the MLPAI, but we know that is not happening.
So you've admitted that Coastside got 90% of what they wanted. The only thing you did not get impacted abalone divers. Recall that the abalone divers were largely represented by RFA, the same RFA which sent a letter to the Governor indicating they would sit out the North Central Process in protest over the Central California result. This kinda suggests that staying involved in the process in a positive way is important. Admit it, there's no way you could have achieved a 90% result otherwise. Yet your own Ben Sleeter is out there posting otherwise, suggesting that "If you decide to participate given what has happened now twice you deserve what you get.":
Ben Sleeter wrote:
Opinion on MLPA outcome
As most of you know I spent a lot of time over the past 4-5 years working on the MLPA, first as an alternate RSG member and SIG member for the Central Coast and then most recently as a member of the RSG for the North Central Coast. With the Commissions final decision to adopt the IPA I felt I should probably give one last note to you guys about how I see this process. So here goes.
Here is what I "think" happened:
Cindy Gustafson, president of the Commission, was ready to either support 2XA or vote to suspend implementation of MLPA (more likely) until the state had the necessary funds to implement it according to the law. This would have resulted in a 3-2 vote to suspend the process, something Mike Chrisman (Sec. for Resources) was not about to allow. More than likely Gustafson was asked to resign or risk hurting any future political ambitions she may have. Rather than stand up based on her convictions she quit and left the Commission with only four members although the plan was made to bring in a "ringer" right before the meeting so as to fly under the radar as much as possible. That plan was executed to near perfection. Chrisman appointed the lap dog Don Benninghoven who actually helped create the IPA - the very plan he was brought in to now adopt. I hand it to these professional politicians. They executed this strategy perfectly. The whole legal issue should be explored given a court ruled that the seperation of the Commission is what made the special interest funding OK. Well so much for that! We can no say that the RLFF paid directly for the outcome they wanted.
In regards to the outcome, the IPA was not all that different form 2XA from Bodega Bay south. In one case (Fitzgerald), we were able to actually get a slightly better outcome due to some manipulation during the final BRTF meeting. There were relatively minor issues, like being able to make bait, that 2XA dealt with in a comprehensive and equitable way where as the goal of the IPA was to restrict fishing in any way possible no matter how small. Really petty things actually that were very typical of the petty nature of the idiots like Samantha Murray of The Ocean Conservancy that were driving the IPA. However, north of Bodega is a totally different story. I wont get into all the details of the difference between the plans - that should be clear by now - but the north coast got absolutely destroyed, especially the abalone fishery. It is conceivable that the abalone fishery could all but disappear in the next 10-20 years due to the huge shift of effort that is sure to take place due to these closures. And the pathetic thing is that 2XA had the perfect solution for this area. But this was a case where we should have learned from history. In the Central Coast process the greatest impact was dropped on the area with the fewest people (Morro Bay). The same thing transpired here. It is simply a function of pathetic spineless amateurish politicians taking the easy way out. While abalone is one thing, another thing to keep in mind is the impact to the Bodega sportfishing fleet that used the area from Horseshoe Cove and above as some of the best rockfish grounds. That is gone. Kayak anglers also used this area a lot as well. Again, its gone - forever. I can not understate the huge inequity involved with this decision. I know "we" do not have a lot of people up there but I never saw that as meaning much of anything. I always considered it my responsibility to advocate for all recreation anglers no matter the size of their community. So yeah, I take this personally.
Last of all, let me finish by saying that any attempt to spin the outcome of this decision as anything remotely positive is doing a huge disservice to recreational fishermen throughout the state. The manipulation of the "process" was so blatant, arrogant, and appalling, that it should send clear signals about how the state values our input into such public processes. It should also serve as a beaming sign to fishermen in the South, North and the Bay, that participation serves no useful objective. It was my hope that if we participated in good faith that we would be treated as partners. Of course it was politically more complex than that but that was my overarching thinking. Well, I can say for certain that I was wrong. We were nothing but placeholders in a fixed game. Were we able to get some things to go our way? Sure. Could they have been worse? Perhaps. But that hardly justifies our participation. I feel strongly that the only real power we ever had was our participation. By sitting at the table we validated the process plain and simple. To continue to sit at the table, in spite of the Central and North Central Coast outcomes, is just plain crazy. At some point we have to take a real stand and that wont happen by trying to find the single pebble of gold in a mountain of ****. Given the way the process at the end was manipulated my opinion is that we simply ignore the outcome of any/all of these processes. Perhaps then these arrogant ******** running this process will realize they have only managed to do the one thing they set out to fix - they created nothing but a bunch of lines on a map and paper parks. Thats how I will go about it anyway. If you decide to participate given what has happened now twice you deserve what you get.
Darrell, here's the problem. You got 90% of what you bargained for in the North Central Process. Before the change at Sea Lion Cove, it was 80%. There was very little downside for you up there when you and ASA pushed out the UASC people who had 12 years of lobbying experience in California and inserted ASA with virtually none. There was no downside for you and ASA to launch the attack strategy. The fisherman love to fight, but they ignore the fact that the odds of success in such a strategy are against them. So effectively, this move had virtually no downside for Coastside in North Central, but it has an incredibly huge downside risk in SoCal. Remember, the 90% result reflected working within the process and not just at the RSG level, but at the political level. Again, Ken Wiseman testified that lobbying at the BRTF and MLPAI level is not happening in the SoCal process. That is a sure sign of not working within the process and that is how Coastside and ASA have effectively thrown SoCal's fishing interests under the bus.
5. It is complete BS that ASA has not been soliciting money. We know for a fact that they solicited the machinists union in DC for money to fight the MLPA arguing that it would cost jobs. We know that because the machinist union rep in DC contacted their lobbyist in Sacramento for input on this. That lobbyist represents most all of the unions in Sacramento matters and formerly represented UASC and currently represents Sportfishing Conservancy ("SportCon"), the new organization formed by Tom Raftican and my wife. This is the same lobbyist that ASA refused to hire when they came into California at your invitation. You know what SportCon's lobbyist told the machinist union in DC? He told him to ask ASA if SAC was willing unionize. As one can imagine, that fund raising effort on the part of ASA died immediately. Tis a small world and reality bites. LOL!
6. Had ASA approached the MLPA in a positive manner, working within the process, just maybe Chrisman would have a different view of them. Nothing like being an unwanted, obnoxious guest at a process you weren't invited to. Problem is, despite ASA's beliefs that their fight will actually save us, they are really steering us toward a suboptimal outcome in SoCal, just as what occurred in the Central California Process where the fisherman fought the entire way. It's about time the fishermen wise up and see the forest from the trees.
Right now the enviros are actually laughing at the fishermen and their strategy. After the fisherman achieved a 90% result in the North Central process, the enviros came down here to SoCal ready to negotiate in good faith. Right out of the gate the fishermen chose a fight strategy. The enviros can't believe that the fisherman chose to revert to the strategy used in Central Cal where they faired so poorly. Afterall, as you say, the process is rigged. But if it was, how could you have achieved 90% of what you wanted?
There is no question now, based on the ASA/PSO strategy, that our outcome here in SoCal will be worse than North Central's. That is my main concern (yet you say I'm on the other side). The enviros intended to negotiate in good faith, but now there is no one they will negotiate with as they've been pushed out and they do not trust ASA/PSO. Why should they trust them when all they've done is attack everything that is the MLPA. Keep in mind the MLPA is the law and it will be implemented regardless of what ASA does. That was never in question, despite ASA's beliefs or efforts. They are simply ignorant of the politics here in California and we can thank them for the inevitable suboptimal result in SoCal.
Thank you for conversing on this. No thanks to your for ruining it for us in SoCal.
Steve
Darrell
August 24, 2009, 9:52 am
Thanks for the comment Steve, I had expected to hear from the other side on
this.
1. Gustafson's resignation at this late stage in her F&G appointment has all
of the earmarks of a political move. She didn't have a conflict despite
careful vetting prior to her appointment. There is no, absolutely no,
apparent conflict with her Tahoe appointment except in very isolated cases
affecting only the Tahoe region (for which she can recuse herself) so that
argument is spurious. I don't know which way Gustafson would have voted, but
the actions taken are certainly suspicious and reek of a political backroom
maneuver.
2. Coastside and the PSO didn't launch any complaints against Commissioner
Sutton, that was a complaint from the CCFC, a central coast organization.
However, Sutton's conflict with regard to the MLPA is obvious to anyone who
would look at his history and paychecks. It is a travesty that he is voting
on this.
3. Secretary Chrisman certainly does care what plan the Commission votes
for. He has shown that with his Blue Ribbon appointments in every sector
implemented so far. He has shown that in his and the governor's 11th hour
appointment of Benninghoven to the Commission. Mr. Benninghoven was the
architect of the IPA at the BRTF and it was obvious to everyone how he would
vote.
4. Yes the IPA did contain 90% of 2XA. The PSO and ASA fought hard for 2XA
because the other 10% gratuitously impacted divers and other shore based
activities and had no extra conservation value other than to punish
recreational users.
5. PSO and ASA have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in working within
the MLPA process and trying to get recreational fishing and marine use
placed into perspective. It is silly to say that ASA did so to raise money.
They are supported by tackle and other fishing related manufacturers and
don't solicit funds. This has cost them a lot of money because they believe,
rightly, that recreational fishing is under attack by runaway
environmentalists who are not interested in the science behind what is
happening but rather only that they push that extreme agenda.
6. So you summarize by saying that Chrisman's move "sent a clear message to
ASA...stay the F out of California politics". That is precisely what is
wrong with this process: it is and has been political from the very
beginning, ignoring the input of scientists who understand the impacts of
what has been proposed, and has furthered a radical environmental cause that
had no basis in science for California, nor any demonstrable benefit from
its implementation. Secretary Chrisman has manipulated this MLPA process to
give himself and the governor a "green credential" and they really have
never cared at all that the process (which could have been one of good
science and helped to organize a patchwork quilt of protection into
something useful) turned science upside down, has had dire financial impact
on the coastal communities where it is already implemented, and is
dramatically negatively impacting a perfectly harmless and healthy
recreational use of the marine environment.
August 24, 2009, 9:52 am
Thanks for the comment Steve, I had expected to hear from the other side on
this.
1. Gustafson's resignation at this late stage in her F&G appointment has all
of the earmarks of a political move. She didn't have a conflict despite
careful vetting prior to her appointment. There is no, absolutely no,
apparent conflict with her Tahoe appointment except in very isolated cases
affecting only the Tahoe region (for which she can recuse herself) so that
argument is spurious. I don't know which way Gustafson would have voted, but
the actions taken are certainly suspicious and reek of a political backroom
maneuver.
2. Coastside and the PSO didn't launch any complaints against Commissioner
Sutton, that was a complaint from the CCFC, a central coast organization.
However, Sutton's conflict with regard to the MLPA is obvious to anyone who
would look at his history and paychecks. It is a travesty that he is voting
on this.
3. Secretary Chrisman certainly does care what plan the Commission votes
for. He has shown that with his Blue Ribbon appointments in every sector
implemented so far. He has shown that in his and the governor's 11th hour
appointment of Benninghoven to the Commission. Mr. Benninghoven was the
architect of the IPA at the BRTF and it was obvious to everyone how he would
vote.
4. Yes the IPA did contain 90% of 2XA. The PSO and ASA fought hard for 2XA
because the other 10% gratuitously impacted divers and other shore based
activities and had no extra conservation value other than to punish
recreational users.
5. PSO and ASA have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in working within
the MLPA process and trying to get recreational fishing and marine use
placed into perspective. It is silly to say that ASA did so to raise money.
They are supported by tackle and other fishing related manufacturers and
don't solicit funds. This has cost them a lot of money because they believe,
rightly, that recreational fishing is under attack by runaway
environmentalists who are not interested in the science behind what is
happening but rather only that they push that extreme agenda.
6. So you summarize by saying that Chrisman's move "sent a clear message to
ASA...stay the F out of California politics". That is precisely what is
wrong with this process: it is and has been political from the very
beginning, ignoring the input of scientists who understand the impacts of
what has been proposed, and has furthered a radical environmental cause that
had no basis in science for California, nor any demonstrable benefit from
its implementation. Secretary Chrisman has manipulated this MLPA process to
give himself and the governor a "green credential" and they really have
never cared at all that the process (which could have been one of good
science and helped to organize a patchwork quilt of protection into
something useful) turned science upside down, has had dire financial impact
on the coastal communities where it is already implemented, and is
dramatically negatively impacting a perfectly harmless and healthy
recreational use of the marine environment.
Steve Mras
August 23, 2009, 1:04 pm
Darryl, you are so off on the politics, but that's been the case since the outset.
Gustafson's resignation was the direct result of an expanded background check on all the Commissioners after ASA/PSO/Coastside launched their Conflict of Interest attack and lawsuit against Commissioner Mike Sutton, which of course failed. They then then went and checked on all the Commissioners and discovered that Cindy had dual public appointments.......since March 2008! The Tahoe Utility appointment was her paid day job and the Commission appointment was an unpaid political appointment. Also, at the time of her resignation, Cindy had only 5 months left on her F&G Commission term.
It's pure speculation what Cindy would have supported as far as Plans in the North Central process. Mike Chrisman really did not care what Plan the Commission voted for so long as it came out of the MLPAI process and the IPA is the recommended result coming out of that process. Chrisman made it perfectly clear in his interview with PCS that no side would get everything they wanted in the final outcome. However, with the changes at Sea Lion Cove, Coastside got nearly 90% of what they wanted into the IPA. So it begs the question why the fight? The answer is real simple: crisis de jour for ASA to raise money off of. They really never wanted to win as that makes it more difficult to raise money.
What is abundantly clear is that Cindy did not support halting the MLPA process; something she made perfectly clearly when shelved a prior motion proposing to write a letter to the Legislature or the Governor about halting the MLPA process due to alleged lack of funding. She punted on it and asked the Commission Staff to look into it, effectively killing it. Only Dan Richards wrote a letter, thus assuring he will never receive another political appointment.
Did Mike Chrisman's hasty appointment of Don Benninghoven assure the vote against halting the MLPA process? Of course it did, but that was also assured with Cindy Gustafson in place. Did it assure a vote for the IPA? Of course it did, but Gustafson was policy wonk and would have voted for the IPA recommended by the BRTF. PSO's read of Gustafson was completely inaccurate, but that is not a surprise. After PSO's lobbyist met with Susan Golding, he came back saying that "she was on our side". Meanwhile, UASC was meeting with Chrisman in attempts to have her removed from the BRTF, arguing that she had already served two terms. Just shows how bad a read that PSO has on our politics.
Mike Chrisman's move sent a clear message to ASA/PSO: Your meddling in California politics as evidenced by your efforts to reconfigure the Fish & Game Commission through attacks and lawsuits on Commissioners and your efforts to overturn or halt the MLPA itself are not welcome. Chrisman showed the Washington DC based ASA who holds the cards and basically sent them a message to stay the F out of California politics.
August 23, 2009, 1:04 pm
Darryl, you are so off on the politics, but that's been the case since the outset.
Gustafson's resignation was the direct result of an expanded background check on all the Commissioners after ASA/PSO/Coastside launched their Conflict of Interest attack and lawsuit against Commissioner Mike Sutton, which of course failed. They then then went and checked on all the Commissioners and discovered that Cindy had dual public appointments.......since March 2008! The Tahoe Utility appointment was her paid day job and the Commission appointment was an unpaid political appointment. Also, at the time of her resignation, Cindy had only 5 months left on her F&G Commission term.
It's pure speculation what Cindy would have supported as far as Plans in the North Central process. Mike Chrisman really did not care what Plan the Commission voted for so long as it came out of the MLPAI process and the IPA is the recommended result coming out of that process. Chrisman made it perfectly clear in his interview with PCS that no side would get everything they wanted in the final outcome. However, with the changes at Sea Lion Cove, Coastside got nearly 90% of what they wanted into the IPA. So it begs the question why the fight? The answer is real simple: crisis de jour for ASA to raise money off of. They really never wanted to win as that makes it more difficult to raise money.
What is abundantly clear is that Cindy did not support halting the MLPA process; something she made perfectly clearly when shelved a prior motion proposing to write a letter to the Legislature or the Governor about halting the MLPA process due to alleged lack of funding. She punted on it and asked the Commission Staff to look into it, effectively killing it. Only Dan Richards wrote a letter, thus assuring he will never receive another political appointment.
Did Mike Chrisman's hasty appointment of Don Benninghoven assure the vote against halting the MLPA process? Of course it did, but that was also assured with Cindy Gustafson in place. Did it assure a vote for the IPA? Of course it did, but Gustafson was policy wonk and would have voted for the IPA recommended by the BRTF. PSO's read of Gustafson was completely inaccurate, but that is not a surprise. After PSO's lobbyist met with Susan Golding, he came back saying that "she was on our side". Meanwhile, UASC was meeting with Chrisman in attempts to have her removed from the BRTF, arguing that she had already served two terms. Just shows how bad a read that PSO has on our politics.
Mike Chrisman's move sent a clear message to ASA/PSO: Your meddling in California politics as evidenced by your efforts to reconfigure the Fish & Game Commission through attacks and lawsuits on Commissioners and your efforts to overturn or halt the MLPA itself are not welcome. Chrisman showed the Washington DC based ASA who holds the cards and basically sent them a message to stay the F out of California politics.
Duane L. Winter
August 17, 2009, 1:31 pm
You are right on Darrell. I was there to witness this tragedy and it just broke my heart. There was no doubt the fix has been in for a long time.
I respect and appreciate that you tell it like it is.
Thanks again
Duane "Dew"
August 17, 2009, 1:31 pm
You are right on Darrell. I was there to witness this tragedy and it just broke my heart. There was no doubt the fix has been in for a long time.
I respect and appreciate that you tell it like it is.
Thanks again
Duane "Dew"
Pete Yeatrakas
August 14, 2009, 10:56 am
Thanks for a great article, Darrel,
I won't vote for another republican until Sutton and that old guy are off the commission. SHAME on the governor for those appointments, especially Sutton. Hopefully Senator Florez will come through with oversight and help clean up the process.
My gratitude for all that worked diligently on getting the best proposal in front of the commission, 2XA
August 14, 2009, 10:56 am
Thanks for a great article, Darrel,
I won't vote for another republican until Sutton and that old guy are off the commission. SHAME on the governor for those appointments, especially Sutton. Hopefully Senator Florez will come through with oversight and help clean up the process.
My gratitude for all that worked diligently on getting the best proposal in front of the commission, 2XA
Mark Capra
August 13, 2009, 10:52 am
Again right on the money Darrel...I sure hope our fellow fishermen down South are reading this blog...it isn't written by a politician or scientist..it is written by a well educated FISHERMAN...heed his words or you'll end up like us with ONLY 8% of the ocean closed as our radical enviro friends like to say..yeah but as we say the other 92% either holds no fish,very little or areas too dangerous to fish..thanks again for your time Darrel...
August 13, 2009, 10:52 am
Again right on the money Darrel...I sure hope our fellow fishermen down South are reading this blog...it isn't written by a politician or scientist..it is written by a well educated FISHERMAN...heed his words or you'll end up like us with ONLY 8% of the ocean closed as our radical enviro friends like to say..yeah but as we say the other 92% either holds no fish,very little or areas too dangerous to fish..thanks again for your time Darrel...
Gary Phillips
August 12, 2009, 10:57 am
Darrel,
Thank you for the frank discussion of the MPA process. I am disappointed in the outcome, but proud of the effort put forward by the angling community. I wholeheartedly agree with you that as anglers we need to look carefully at the polical candidates we elect. We need to vote for agendas, not parties.
August 12, 2009, 10:57 am
Darrel,
Thank you for the frank discussion of the MPA process. I am disappointed in the outcome, but proud of the effort put forward by the angling community. I wholeheartedly agree with you that as anglers we need to look carefully at the polical candidates we elect. We need to vote for agendas, not parties.
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated by the administrators.All fields are required.
September 23, 2009, 4:00 pm
Steve, At least Dan Richards had the integrity to write a response to Chrisman's idiotic letter! More than I can say about Sutton!