Yesterday's MLPA Teleconference

[linglover]

As a lot of folks here are already aware, the MLPA Initiative staff held a Teleconference/Webinar early Wednesday morning to brief the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (SCRSG) and the Statewide Interests Group (SIG) on the implications of the "Advice from the Office of the Attorney General Regarding Marine Protected Areas."

That 1-1/2 conference call cleared up a whole lot of misconceptions about what can and cannot take place in a no-take reserve (SMR). A recording of that call is available at: CAL-SPAN:California State Meetings Webcast Video (http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=MLPA-SCRSG). Just break out some brews and snacks and click on the "Teleconference" link under "Video".

Folks here who will be attending the BRTF meeting on the 21st--everyone, I hope--should take the time to review this.

The short summary, IMO, is that the "Advice . . ." is either neutral or works in favor of Proposal 2. That's because Work Group 2 followed the rules all along. The radical enviro reps in 1 and 3 were too busy setting up opportunities for future funding and/or lawsuits to really care about the rules. As usual, they tended to believe they could make up their own.

-Joel
SCRSG Member

[So Cal Shaggy]

Thanks for posting the link Joel and also for your insight.

[Urchin_Diver]

That's because Work Group 2 followed the rules all along.

Joel, can you list what rules group 2 followed so i can incorporate them into my comment for weds??
thanks

[spearthebigones]

Some observations from the video.....

It just sounded like the MLPA task force was just going to leave it up to the DFG. Because only the DFG will make the decision to further ban these SMR zones to non fishing activities.

Also all current permits for jetty maintenance, sand extraction, ext... are legal binding contracts which cannot be overruled by the SMR zones.

The 3 options of allowing these contractual agreements is up to the map makers. There is no real preference on which is better than the other. Move the SMR out of the area, change it to an SMCA zone instead, or create a smaller SMCA zone inside the SMR zone.

The last of the three sounds like a total bending of the rules to me, but whatever.

They also believed that in general banning walking, diving, anchoring, ext... should not be a concern to anyone, because the DFG has only put such restrictions in a very few number of current SMR zones in California. So historically speaking, SMR zones are generally open to public use. Although they accepted that it was a definite possibility for certain locations to ban all public access if the DFG saw fit (such as creating a rookery for seals).

But the area of the ban will only encompass from the intertidal zone out to sea. The DFG cannot ban people from walking or doing anything above the high tide zone, even if it disturbs animals or birds.

At least this is my personal take on the whole thing...

[MiguelT]

It just sounded like the MLPA task force was just going to leave it up to the DFG. Because only the DFG will make the decision to further ban these SMR zones to non fishing activities.

That's not up to the DFG though, fortunately it's up to whichever group that got screwed out of diving laguna to file a lawsuit that some rich lady's kid stepped on a sand crab and thus violated the wording the attorney general had presented about harming any living organism in a protected area. Then the DFG has no choice but to either keep getting sued by said group 10 million times over or to ban swimming, surfing, and any number of other activities :)

I for one will be videotaping a lot of surfers in laguna cutting kelp, people walking in tidepools harming the whatever I can think of, and people walking in the intertidal zone harming sand crabs.

[spearthebigones]

That's not up to the DFG though, fortunately it's up to whichever group that got screwed out of diving laguna to file a lawsuit that some rich lady's kid stepped on a sand crab and thus violated the wording the attorney general had presented about harming any living organism in a protected area. Then the DFG has no choice but to either keep getting sued by said group 10 million times over or to ban swimming, surfing, and any number of other activities :)

I for one will be videotaping a lot of surfers in laguna cutting kelp, people walking in tidepools harming the whatever I can think of, and people walking in the intertidal zone harming sand crabs.

You're right Miguel that was the other option to enforce the ban of public access in SMRs. Which they didn't deny was a possibility, just unprecidented as far as they knew (in the video).

[Chris Lupin]

:rant: This is what pissed me off the most about the MLPA. When was the last time you heard anyone say that they KNOW this will happen or are SURE this will be affected. THE ENTIRE F'ING THING IS SPECULATIVE! They can't even do their research on if mpas had been restricted, they have to say "Well as far as we know, with the little research we've done mpas haven't been restricted. maybe" The words "best available, maybe, possibly, we think, might, could, should, etc." SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN USED IN THIS PROCESS. EVER. What a crock of sht. I'm sick and tired of hearing that we think this or as far as we know that. Use some damn facts. How about a nice "The evidence shows that, or we know for a fact that..."

Ok, now I feel better. Thats been building up for a while, after reading speculative bs every day for the past months. :D Sorry.

[linglover]

Joel, can you list what rules group 2 followed so i can incorporate them into my comment for weds??
thanks

Short version:

"After reading Workgroup 2's site specific rationales and design considerations, it is clear to me that they did extensive outreach to all the appropriate managing agencies and local authorities in order to avoid or call out potential conflicts wherever possible."

Saying anything more on that issue will likely be a waste of precious time at the mic.

However, you can expect the other proponents to offer a much fuzzier version of the truth. :liar:

So, while I suspect you probably have already done so, go do a read through this document (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/scrsg_r3_prop2_supp.pdf), because facts take precedence over arm waving every time.

-Joel

[MiguelT]

Ok, now I feel better. Thats been building up for a while, after reading speculative bs every day for the past months. :D Sorry.

Wow man, you'd been the only one that hadn't flipped his shit yet, feels great doesn't it :D

[Chris Lupin]

Wow man, you'd been the only one that hadn't flipped his shit yet, feels great doesn't it :D

YES! Now back to being quiet and calm :D

[rojodiablo]

:rant: This is what pissed me off the most about the MLPA. When was the last time you heard anyone say that they KNOW this will happen or are SURE this will be affected. THE ENTIRE F'ING THING IS SPECULATIVE! They can't even do their research on if mpas had been restricted, they have to say "Well as far as we know, with the little research we've done mpas haven't been restricted. maybe" The words "best available, maybe, possibly, we think, might, could, should, etc." SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN USED IN THIS PROCESS. EVER. What a crock of sht. I'm sick and tired of hearing that we think this or as far as we know that. Use some damn facts. How about a nice "The evidence shows that, or we know for a fact that..."

Ok, now I feel better. Thats been building up for a while, after reading speculative bs every day for the past months. :D Sorry.

EGGZACTLY!!!!:lol: When the lawyers get hold of this, speculation does not go far when real money, real judgements, and factual ruling by judges hit the sand. Have you ever heard a judge in a real trial talk about best available technology?? Hint: The best available DNA showed there was a 99% possibility you were NOT the person whose blood was on the crime scene.
The defendant stated he COULD not avoid the collision, as the person jumped into the road directly in front of him. We THINK the defendant was the responsible person, but we have no evidence. He might have done it; MAYBE he wanted to get even with them for farting in the elevator.
Do any of these sound like a judge will hear this and say " The defendant is responsible for these actions, so I find him at fault." No.

But will they find you responsible if you say " I THOUGHT it was OK to let people trample the reef, even though the best available science showed it would be detrimental. I just did not want to stop people from going into the water, and I did not want to keep kids from exploring the tidepools."???Well??? Get ready to answer for your actions....

So friggin' sad.:(

[peter culp]

I saw this quote on BD

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”

Abe Lincoln

[MiguelT]

You're right Miguel that was the other option to enforce the ban of public access in SMRs. Which they didn't deny was a possibility, just unprecidented as far as they knew (in the video).

A lot of things were unprecedented as far as people knew, integrated schools, women voting, child labor laws... The real debate isn't whether it's unprecedented, it's whether there is a real possibility that a precedent could easily be made if someone wanted to sue over it, which there is :)

Just more false logic and deceptive rhetoric for them to hide behind.

[MiguelT]

Yeah, unprecedented, except in the areas they've alread banned human "interference" in MPAs

Wow, I had no idea about those, looks like our work is cut out for us huh :thumps:

[spearthebigones]

unprecedented?

You mean aside from the ban on entering the water in Point Loma te the Cabrillo Natl monument? You mean aside form the ban on all activities in the water at Point Lobos?




Yeah, unprecedented, except in the areas they've alread banned human "interference" in MPAs

No no... What would be unprecedented (as far as the Initiative Team believes) is for a person or group to sue for a ban on all activities in a no take reserve. As far as they knew the DFG has never been sued before over this issue.

[Chris Lupin]

Ah, well, OK then.


Who want's to join me in my lawsuit against the DFG to get them to protect the delicate intertidal enviornment from human foot traffic caused damage in MPAs, as well as immense desruction caused by boat traffic and anchoring?

I do! I just want to see the look on the malibu and laguna ladies' faces when they can't walk below the high tide line. I'm willing to sacrifice a few surf spots just to see that look of horror and confusion, and I'll be standing there saying "I TOLD YOU SO DUMBASS!"

[SeaZen]

i did not read all the posts in this thread, my applogy if someone has already said it.

take a new turn on the AG's letter..
now that you can not dive in Laguna and all the easy access points are gone, i say go after the folks down towards three arch, get a good lawyer to file an eminent domain lawsuit in the interest of the public, get a public access easement awarded, complete with a parking lot and bathrooms with hot showers. then see how all the folks feel about the central laguna closures!

see you at the BRTF!!!