Santa Barbara Flyfishers' Forums
General Open Discussion (registration required to post) >> Conservation Corner >> Second Round MLPA Proposals vetoed

Message started by Lew_Riffle on Jun 5th, 2009, 8:01am

Title: Second Round MLPA Proposals vetoed
Post by Lew_Riffle on Jun 5th, 2009, 8:01am

I waited and looked for the past weeks for the results of voting from the stakeholder meetings last May 19th-21st. Now as Western Outdoor News comes out this week it is apparent why the results where not so apparent.
It seems that the vote was ignored and the results did not please those who lost out on not having their proposal included in the next round. With a lot of double talk the "Blue Ribbon Task Farce" now has included the most restrictive proposal "External C" after the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper and the Santa Monica Baykeeper whined up a storm that they were voted off the island. In an overt move it now passed on to second round and the vote that was taken is essentially ignored(vetoed with now authority) because expectations of the apparent minority was not met. The vote of the majority of stakeholders was essentially ignored. The "external C" as best as I can see is the only one that included the Carpinteria MPA complex and effects our area in that respect. The fact is that there should not be this many Marine Protected Areas. The guidelines state that there should be about 30 miles between MPA's but then the rule twisters won't buy that simple guideline and start all this mumbo jumbo unsubstantiated bull about juvenile migration and inclusion habitat diversity. After all they are just guidelines and we know that ''the keepers" know what is best for all the rest of us. That is democracy in California right now.   External C should be history but mark my word it will be for the most part what is adopted and given to the Fish and Games Commisson for approval for closures. It was voted out by a majority of stakeholder who were told that they  were a part of the decision making process...I guess not.  This is not governmental process that belongs in the United States of America. But it will be ignored out of pure apathy because it is such a  confusing and obscure issue with a candy coating that we are saving the environment. You can't expect our simple minded journalist types to comprehend this can we...after all that is why they became peons in the pool of the lame that ask stupid questions to get stupid easy content while the real issues slide right on by.  

 This is just more sham in a shamed process. You may call it a betrayal of trust but this is out right fraud in my book.  Some one somewhere who has some authority has got to stop this. It is violation of our State short we are are letting our government be bought out to highest bidder. We let them make the rules. They urge us to take part. They change the rules to suit their needs. They got the money they get what they want and the Resources Law Group hopes it all ends in court.

Check out the blogs of Rich Holland and Paul Lebowitz on  I hate to say it but this is the only  and most informed journalism on this bizarre issue. It has got so confusing that most just can not make sense of it. Most likely it is because there is little or sense in it in the first place. This is the will of rich neurotic people who have a bunch of chumps working for them.  

We still can't quit....we got to make comment into public record.  Please if you are concerned please take some time to inform yourself about this. Being pissed off can wait. I won't be to "online the next few weeks because I will be up in remote Mono County. There is a meeting in SB July 9th that needs some presence and comment.     LEW

Title: Re: Second Round MLPA Proposals vetoed
Post by Lew_Riffle on Jun 6th, 2009, 6:15am

As a follow up there was a meeting June 4th which has not had its minutes officially reported but what I can gather is that the Blue Ribbon Task Force has reversed this veto and indeed with drawn "external C" from the list. This is not without swinging the hammer a bit and saying that nothing is off the table as of now. However what is now coming out of round two is consensus of sorts and maybe that will hold some sway over the summer as the process of picking these closures comes down on us.  A lesson has been taught but I don't think it will help much unless continued protest goes on to the point reality becomes something to consider instead of this make believe world that this incidious neurosis lives. It is just that, a neurosis, and not a consensus.        
Allcoast Sportfishing  main message board has had some good dicusion on this topic. Google it. I don't have time to mess with a link 'cus I'm walking out the door headed to the high country.  LEW

Title: Re: Second Round MLPA Proposals vetoed
Post by jburk on Jun 22nd, 2009, 5:06pm

Are there legislatures that we should contact or do they not know anything about this or have no effect either?


Santa Barbara Flyfishers' Forums » Powered by YaBB 2.1!
YaBB © 2000-2005. All Rights Reserved.