As someone who has been engaged in the process of politics in California for well over two decades now, I have developed a “thick skin” when it comes to watching our state’s policy makers, dominated by the ideological left, make decision after decision that makes no sense whatsoever when juxtaposed over the reality of life. But I am used to the fact that we have too many policy makers who are very comfortable over-taxing, over-borrowing, over-spending and over-regulating. For a great many of these policy makers, they pursue this kind of “taking” of individual liberty and freedom with the fervor of a religious quest – decrying those who believe in individual liberty and people’s rights over collective rights and societal responsibility like we are heretics.
One can only imagine what this menagerie must look like to a commercial fisherman or recreational boater who one day hears a rumor, “Guess what? California politicians are going to ban fishing and boating in wide swaths of the ocean, off of the state coastline!”
I’m sure disbelief transitioned to shock which then became outrage and by now these folks are well on their way to despondent. Unfortunately, state government is literally on the verge of implementing the agenda of left-wing environmental extremists who, not just content to protect the Delta Smelt, are apparently out to protect every “Nemo” and “Dori” off the coastline from the evil clutches of man (whom many of these eco-nuts see as being a life form morally equivalent to human beings).
Starting tomorrow, the California Fish and Game Commission (packed by the Governor with the same kind of “super stars” that we have seen on other unelected regulatory boards such as the Energy Commission and the Air Resources Board) will consider the adoption of regulations for the creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Southern California — regulations that are not good news for many.
Despite the earnest attempts of those whose economic livelihood depends on having our oceans open for both fishing and boating (let alone for those who engage in fishing and boating for – gasp – pleasure) to participate in a meaningful process as the State’s Fish and Game Commission and an appointed “Blue Ribbon Task Force” consider what regulations that they will impose to implement the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act – you will be shocked to hear that virtually none of these concerns were taken into account. Tomorrow at a joint meeting of the Fish and Game Commission and this Blue Ribbon Task Force, the plan almost certain to move forward is not one that addresses the real concerns of the fishermen and boaters. Virtually none of their concerns substantively mitigated in the final plan. The Los Angeles Times actually ran an article that shows exactly how much the plan moving forward favors the interests of the enviro-whacks over normal people.
This is just the Southern California plan (Northern California comes next) – but the favored proposal severely impedes human-uses of the ocean off San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
I literally don’t have the time (and column space) to write about all of the conflicts of interests that exist in this process (I did actually pen a column a few months back focusing in one just one of many, that of Fish and Game Commissioner Michael Sutton’s conflicts of interest). I feel very bad though for these poor fishermen and for all commercial and recreational boaters. They simply didn’t understand that no matter what you do, and no matter where you do it, you need to spend massive amounts of money for sophisticated lobbying efforts in Sacramento (and Washington, D.C.). Otherwise, you simply won’t be prepared. Heck, the oil industry had every reason to be worried about some of the best potential locations for offshore drilling being placed out of reach, in an MPA –restricted area. But the oil industry does know Sacramento, and by the time they were done, the head of the Blue Ribbon Task Force was a lead lobbyist and advocate for the petroleum industry. Not surprisingly, many key potential off-shore drilling locations remain unrestricted by this particular plan (of course other restrictions are in place that impact potential drilling for oil in them).
So, besides calling your friends who are in the offshore fishing and boating industries or sports, and offering to buy them drinks and consoling their pending unemployment (or lack of enjoyment), what is there to do at this point?
CALL TO ACTION
The process of creating these new, terrible regulations does take a little time. While it begins with a meeting tomorrow in Los Angeles, that is not the end of a months-long regulation-creating process. If you live in the Los Angeles Area, you should attend tomorrow’s Fish and Game Commission meeting at the LAX Airport Radisson Hotel in the ABC Ballroom (6225 W. Century Blvd.) – you’ll want to be there by 9am if you want to try and address the commission.
Assuming that you are not going to be able to appear before the Fish and Game Commission (or even if you do), you should take a moment to e-mail your concerns to the Commission Members (as conflicted as many of them are) through the Department of Fish and Game website.
This call to action aside, your best bet would be to contact your state legislator and since he is somewhat of a populist, make sure you contact the Governor as well. The message would be simple. STOP. WE ARE IN A RECESSION. DO NOT ADOPT DRACONIAN, ANTI-JOB, ANTI-PLEASURE REGULATION.
(I spent several years as an appointee of Governor Schwarzenegger to the California Boating and Waterways Commission and I can tell you that contacting Commissioners does matter.)
The lesson that everyone here should have ingrained into their brains is that there really is no freedom you enjoy that is immune from the prying eyes and hands of government. You must be vigilant, and aware – and prepare to be ready to fight to preserve your rights to individual liberty and freedom.
One cannot help but wonder at the end of this nightmare is one legacy-building photo-opportunity for Governor Schwarzenegger. He can at the beach in Pt. Dume and invite cameras to pan along the pristine waters – looking much the same as when the Spanish Conquistadors first set eyes on them – not a sign of human life…
But then, can any of you think of a time when the Governor has used his environmental agenda to set up a photo opportunity? I can’t (try to ignore this photo).
As for me, if I were Governor I think I would prefer to know that I helped to help preserve jobs by stopping this terrible plan from being implemented.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
This after the Gov issued a Happy Birthday proclamation for you? :-)
December 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Maybe the citizens of California should pass a referendum prohibiting unelected boards, commissions, etc. from passing and enforcing regulations.
How would it work if they could only suggest new regulations and send them to the legislature who would have to hold complete committee hearings and pass the regulation via recorded vote. Then the regulation would have to be posted in print and on the internet for a minimum of ninety days before the governor could sign it and make it effective 180 days after the signing.
The purpose of this plan would be to make the legislature and governor responsible for what happens in this state. Isn’t that what they get paid for?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
And now for the facts …
The Marine Life Protection Act received BIPARTISAN support when it passed the Legislature in 1999. Since that time, Fish & Game has worked to build consensus on the regulatory aspects of the law. Hundreds of meetings have been held up and down the coast, involving thousands of Californians.
The proposals are based on that consensus and are NOT what the environmental community asked for. But a small group of folks — having lost at the table when everyone was at it — now are protesting because they want it their way or the highway. Fortunately, the majority of the Fish & Game Commission and the Blue Ribbon Task Forces established to design the protection plans have not succumbed to the pressures put on it.
You might look at who is funding the opposition to MPA’s. That would be foreign fishing equipment interests, who have poured millions into a group with the fraudulent name of the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans. In its world, “sustainable” means overfishing so there isn’t a resource left for our children and grandchildren. You can find out more about this group at http://www.somethingsfishyaboutpso.com.
Lastly, hundreds of coastal businesses, including tourism, depends on a healthy ocean. MPA’s in other states have had ZERO negative impact on local economies, and in some cases, have helped local businesses.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
The facts my bass! The real fact is that at the end of the second round of three stakeholder planning sessions, the three subgroups voted to exclude the outside plan brought forth by environmentalists. That community rapidly went to work behind the scenes and amidst claims that stakeholders representing environmental groups were bullied, all the previous work was set aside and three new subgroups were formed. One group was made up entirely of enviros and another made up of fishing interests. The other was mostly enviros and a couple commercial fishermen. The closest thing to a recreational angler in two of the three groups was a research scientist funded by wealthy yachtsmen.
This was, in the terms of the BRTF itself, an attempt to provide “safe haven” to the enviros. They groups were told to work off the plans initially voted for by stakeholders, but to bring any and all ideas to the table.
I was there at the first round three planning meeting and watched when the first thing Group 3, the enviros, did was throw away the negotiated maps and start over with a wish list of massive closures that exceeded the plan that had already been thrown out by stakeholders.
In Group 1, the mix of enviros and commercial interests, the commercial fishermen were hammered into concessions they later recanted, but did ultimately reflect in the final maps (along with some benefits to them).
Meanwhile, most of the boating and fishing interests continued to develop an economically sound plan, bowing to the restrictions of the Science Advisory Team at every turn.
In the end only one of the designs put forth by the true stakeholders (group 2) made the final integrated proposal.
Finally, the slam on the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans shows the irresponsible attitude towards the truth in this process. The PSO is made up of only one organization outside the state of California, the American Sportfishing Association. The ASA is a member-funded sportfishing industry association that includes such companies as Shimano American and Daiwa. Yes, both of those companies are Japanese-owned fishing tackle manufacturers. Both also have their main U.S. facilities in California. During the final BRTF deliberations, Shimano American Director Dave Pfeiffer testified that doing business in California is costly enough, but if access to fishing is too severely curtailed, his company would consider moving out of the state. (They moved to Irvine from New Jersey in the 80s. Take note they also are one of the biggest players in the bike industry. That business is also housed in Irvine and Pfeiffer runs both.)
The other members of the PSO are groups like the Southern California Marine Manufacturers Association, the Kayak Association, Sportfishing Association of California, Recreational Fishing Alliance and United Anglers.
Their group has barely been able to raise over $100,000 to protect their interests, yet the website noted above likens the PSO to the tobacco lobby (which by the way was produced by the California League of Conservation Voters, whose current director Werner Chabot has been an adamant and active supporter of fishing closures).
On the other hand, the Marine Life Protection Act process has been funded completely by a private foundation, the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. A holding fund for other foundations, including the Packard Foundation and the Moore Foundation (Campbell Soup heirs), the RLFF has provided more than $3 million dollars a year to the process under a Memorandum of understanding with Resources Secretary (and nominal Republican) Mike Chrisman.
Mr. Fleischman is right, we’re underfunded and undergunned, especially during a time when the boating industry is all but dead and fishing regulations are extremely restrictive (but already proven effective — both at restoring fish populations and reducing the number of licensed anglers in the state).
In other words, it’s pure politics. The quid pro quo? It’s quite likely Chrisman believes it will buy San Joaquin Valley farmers some water.