Go to this website and follow the directions. Just takes 5 minutes of your time!!!!!
http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/issues/alert/?alertid=11225626
http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/issues/alert/?alertid=11225626
Time For Another Email Campaign for Fishing Rights
- Thread starter Flutterby
- Start date
chiselchst
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- RO Number
- 19418
- Messages
- 199
Liz,
Thanks for mentioning this. Here is more info from an email I have sent out (completely plagearized from Absolot's email!!!)
_______________________
Friends,
Most of you know how important fishing is to me, but what most of you don#700;t know is that there is a serious campaign being waged to close much of our coastline to fishing. Legislation was put into place many years ago to study existing conditions and to use the best science to create preserves for fish, which is a good thing.
However the State never allocated the money to fund the research and associated expenses so the issue was put on hold. Recently a group of Protectionists led by Julie Packard and the Packard Foundation offered to fund the process with the intent to create vast reserves where there would be no fishing allowed and access by boat would be restricted. They are not interested in the best science and have blatantly ignored scientific findings in their efforts to turn our coastline into a virtual aquarium. Their proposal is known as Proposal #4.
I grew up fishing with my Father and have enjoyed this past time for nearly 4-decades now. I think that it is important to maintain this heritage for our children and their children. I am also a member of a large fishing club (~13,000 members) and we have joined with other environmental groups and scientists to propose a solution that will help return our fish stocks to healthy levels while still providing opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing. Our proposal is known as Proposal 2-XA. Proposal 2-XA is a very well thought out proposal, based in sound science, satisfying all of the criteria and goals of the process, yet retains the ability of the sport fisherman to have reasonable access to local fishing areas.
I am begging you to please help me, and take a moment to write a personal email and express your support for Proposal 2-XA. If this proposal does not pass, most of the coastal areas will be closed to sport fisherman, and the socioeconomics alone will have a huge impact on this state, not to mention the many such as me that will no longer be able to fish off of our coast.
Please read the main talking points below, and craft a personal email to express your support for Proposal 2-XA. I really need your help...Thanks for your time (the are tossing out any "form" emails, so this needs to be put in "your own words".
(Please BCC me with your email - I will HOUND everyone that does NOT write an email, LOL)
SEND EMAILS TO:
MLPACommentsrb2rb2rb2@gr5tgr5tgr5tresources.ca.gov
____________________
* Proposal 2-XA is a well balanced and strong conservation proposal that does not have significant adverse socioeconomic impacts on commercial and/or recreational fishermen and divers but:
* Proposal 2-XA achieves the scientific and conservation goals of the MLPA
* Proposal 2-XA meets Department of Fish and Game feasibility guidelines
* Proposal 2-XA is enforceable and will have broad public support
* Proposal 2-XA is the only proposal to have broad support from a wide range of fishing user groups
* Proposal 2-XA has a strong backbone of marine reserves with seven core areas where a State Marine Reserve serves as the foundation of the MPA cluster
* Proposal 2-XA places an emphasis on total ecosystem protection with an emphasis on the “High” level of protection.
* Proposal 2-XA places an emphasis on contributing to a network of MPAs in the "preferred" size range.
* Proposal 2-XA has the support of a vast array of commercial and recreational fishermen/women and divers.
* Proposal 2-XA and/or its individual components has the support of many in the conservation community.
* Proposal 2-XA is the ONLY proposal to meet the SAT size and spacing guidelines for ALL the habitat types at the Moderate-High level of protection of higher. The other two proposals, 13 and 4, only meet the SAT guidelines at the Moderate level of protection. In other words, they have a "gap" in protection of at least one habitat. Proposal 2-XA is the most complete and comprehensive proposal and does the best job of meeting the scientific guidelines set forth by the process. And while it is the best scientific proposal, 2-XA is also the best in terms of minimizing socioeconomic impacts to users.
Thanks for mentioning this. Here is more info from an email I have sent out (completely plagearized from Absolot's email!!!)
_______________________
Friends,
Most of you know how important fishing is to me, but what most of you don#700;t know is that there is a serious campaign being waged to close much of our coastline to fishing. Legislation was put into place many years ago to study existing conditions and to use the best science to create preserves for fish, which is a good thing.
However the State never allocated the money to fund the research and associated expenses so the issue was put on hold. Recently a group of Protectionists led by Julie Packard and the Packard Foundation offered to fund the process with the intent to create vast reserves where there would be no fishing allowed and access by boat would be restricted. They are not interested in the best science and have blatantly ignored scientific findings in their efforts to turn our coastline into a virtual aquarium. Their proposal is known as Proposal #4.
I grew up fishing with my Father and have enjoyed this past time for nearly 4-decades now. I think that it is important to maintain this heritage for our children and their children. I am also a member of a large fishing club (~13,000 members) and we have joined with other environmental groups and scientists to propose a solution that will help return our fish stocks to healthy levels while still providing opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing. Our proposal is known as Proposal 2-XA. Proposal 2-XA is a very well thought out proposal, based in sound science, satisfying all of the criteria and goals of the process, yet retains the ability of the sport fisherman to have reasonable access to local fishing areas.
I am begging you to please help me, and take a moment to write a personal email and express your support for Proposal 2-XA. If this proposal does not pass, most of the coastal areas will be closed to sport fisherman, and the socioeconomics alone will have a huge impact on this state, not to mention the many such as me that will no longer be able to fish off of our coast.
Please read the main talking points below, and craft a personal email to express your support for Proposal 2-XA. I really need your help...Thanks for your time (the are tossing out any "form" emails, so this needs to be put in "your own words".
(Please BCC me with your email - I will HOUND everyone that does NOT write an email, LOL)
SEND EMAILS TO:
MLPACommentsrb2rb2rb2@gr5tgr5tgr5tresources.ca.gov
____________________
* Proposal 2-XA is a well balanced and strong conservation proposal that does not have significant adverse socioeconomic impacts on commercial and/or recreational fishermen and divers but:
* Proposal 2-XA achieves the scientific and conservation goals of the MLPA
* Proposal 2-XA meets Department of Fish and Game feasibility guidelines
* Proposal 2-XA is enforceable and will have broad public support
* Proposal 2-XA is the only proposal to have broad support from a wide range of fishing user groups
* Proposal 2-XA has a strong backbone of marine reserves with seven core areas where a State Marine Reserve serves as the foundation of the MPA cluster
* Proposal 2-XA places an emphasis on total ecosystem protection with an emphasis on the “High” level of protection.
* Proposal 2-XA places an emphasis on contributing to a network of MPAs in the "preferred" size range.
* Proposal 2-XA has the support of a vast array of commercial and recreational fishermen/women and divers.
* Proposal 2-XA and/or its individual components has the support of many in the conservation community.
* Proposal 2-XA is the ONLY proposal to meet the SAT size and spacing guidelines for ALL the habitat types at the Moderate-High level of protection of higher. The other two proposals, 13 and 4, only meet the SAT guidelines at the Moderate level of protection. In other words, they have a "gap" in protection of at least one habitat. Proposal 2-XA is the most complete and comprehensive proposal and does the best job of meeting the scientific guidelines set forth by the process. And while it is the best scientific proposal, 2-XA is also the best in terms of minimizing socioeconomic impacts to users.
chiselchst
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- RO Number
- 19418
- Messages
- 199
The email address came out messed up, for some reason?
But PLEASE email your comments to:
MLPACommentsrb2@gr5tresources.ca.gov
But PLEASE email your comments to:
MLPACommentsrb2@gr5tresources.ca.gov
chiselchst
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- RO Number
- 19418
- Messages
- 199
OK, I don't know what's going on, but the CORRECT email address is:
MLPA comments at resources dot ca dot gov
Please type in the address as written here.
Thanks everyone!
PS Please Feel free to scrape & paste this into an email to everyone you know to help spread the word!
MLPA comments at resources dot ca dot gov
Please type in the address as written here.
Thanks everyone!
PS Please Feel free to scrape & paste this into an email to everyone you know to help spread the word!
We were out fishing this weekend by Sherman Lake on the Sacramento River. We have been checked the last 5 times out by either the sheriff or DFG. This boat was an old center console sheriff's boat but manned by DFG. They were requesting information on how many fish caught, species of fish being targeted and how long we had been fishing.
I have no problem with these safety checks, license checks or bag inquiries. What really ticked me off was having 5 DFG personnel in this boat. All it took was two to handle this operation. They all had DFG uniforms on. It is now wonder California is going broke. They could have manned two boats and covered twice as much territory. Sorry had to rant.
I have no problem with these safety checks, license checks or bag inquiries. What really ticked me off was having 5 DFG personnel in this boat. All it took was two to handle this operation. They all had DFG uniforms on. It is now wonder California is going broke. They could have manned two boats and covered twice as much territory. Sorry had to rant.
I have a question about this so please forgive my ignorance. How low are the fish populations? I enjoy fishing when ever I get the chance and have done so off shore with friends every other year so I don't want to see fishing closed either. I know that the salmon runs are low and I believe that is the result of poor water management by the bureau of Reclamation and not because of the salmon or the fishermen. I don't know how low the rock fish populations are but how can the government agency's really know?
If the populations are really and truly low what happens if fishing continues and those species populations are almost eliminated? Could it happen, has it happened? Could some of these species become like the Buffalo or others? Who thought back then that they were participating in a sport that almost totally eliminated a species? I don't want to stop the off shore fishing but I would give it up to save the species and help them return to sustainable numbers. I also feel badly for the commercial fishermen whose lively hoods would be ruined. There may not be any good solution for this and I believe it's due to mismanagement by the government and we all will pay the price for their errors.
If the populations are really and truly low what happens if fishing continues and those species populations are almost eliminated? Could it happen, has it happened? Could some of these species become like the Buffalo or others? Who thought back then that they were participating in a sport that almost totally eliminated a species? I don't want to stop the off shore fishing but I would give it up to save the species and help them return to sustainable numbers. I also feel badly for the commercial fishermen whose lively hoods would be ruined. There may not be any good solution for this and I believe it's due to mismanagement by the government and we all will pay the price for their errors.
Gnarly, I to believe that water mismanagement has lead to the fishery problems. For lots of information about the issues, check out http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/index.html .
Cats Meow,
My bet is that these people were not wardens, but possibly a biologist with some student assistants or interns. I can tell you after being an assistant myself, California is getting a bargain as the pay is close to minimum wage w/o any benefits. There is also the assumption that Fish and Game has another boat to use. Fish and Game is a department that has been SEVERELY impacted by budget cuts and the use of one boat may have been out of necessity. Just my two cents as I feel there is a horrible perception about ALL government agencies.
My bet is that these people were not wardens, but possibly a biologist with some student assistants or interns. I can tell you after being an assistant myself, California is getting a bargain as the pay is close to minimum wage w/o any benefits. There is also the assumption that Fish and Game has another boat to use. Fish and Game is a department that has been SEVERELY impacted by budget cuts and the use of one boat may have been out of necessity. Just my two cents as I feel there is a horrible perception about ALL government agencies.
Gnarley,
The salmon problems are unrelated to this issue and are both a result of water management practices and possibly some type of ocean phenomenon because Oregon and Washington are also experiencing low returns and there water management practices have not changed much in the last five years like ours.
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was enacted in 1999 to healthy populations of many species of marine wildlife. The intent was to do scientific sampling and studies to determine good management practices so that our fisheries remain healthy. This is a goal shared by the states natural ecologists, our fishermen who are actually out there interacting with and observing nature while harvesting fish for their consumption. Unfortunately, the government was unable to procure funding for this project and it languished for many years.
Several years ago, a protectionist group led by Julie Packard stepped forward and offered to fund all research and study with the publicly unstated goal of closing areas to fishing and human interaction. Anyone who has ever taken economics and statistics can guess how the source of funding would influence the data. In any case, there have been many stakeholders that have participated in the process to try and craft solutions that provide the required protection while minimizing the economic impact to local businesses. Three proposals have evolved from the process ... Proposal 1/3 is an incomplete work and will be difficult if not impossible to implement without much more work. Proposal 2xa is the proposal put forth by an alliance of several fishing and environmentalist groups. Proposal 4 is the one offered by the protectionist group led by Julie Packard and will affect over 25% of the Northern California coastline.
Interestingly, the Science Advisory Team(SAT) has found that Proposal 2xa is the only proposal to meet the SAT size and spacing guidelines for ALL the habitat types at the Moderate-High level of protection of higher. The other two proposals, 1/3 and 4, only meet the SAT guidelines at the Moderate level of protection. In other words, they have a "gap" in protection of at least one habitat. Proposal 4's economic impact would be devastating to businesses that rely upon the sea for their livelihood since they have closed most areas that are within a safe distance from local harbors. Small boaters will be forced to choose between fishing and their safety since they will have to run long distances to get to open areas and we all know how quickly weather conditions can change.
There is only one week left before the Blue Ribbon Task Force(BRTF) meets to recommend one of the porposals to the Department of Fish and Game. Proposal 2xa is the only realistic one which will protect fish, provide sanctuaries, and allow recreational use of our coastline by people in small boats. Check out http://www.coastsidefishingclub.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=MLPA for more information. Unfortunately the Packard Foundation runs the Monterey Aquarium and they are using this location to get people to unknowingly support their position without providing all of the facts. Please help kto keep ocean fishing alive for your children and grandchildren by spending no more than 3 minutes to visit this link: http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/issues/alert/?alertid=11225626 If you want to be even more effective take the time to write an email with some of the talking points that Mitch includes above and send them to MLPAComments at resources dot ca dot gov
Trust me, the protectionists will not stop at California's coastline. They want to turn our oceans into virtual aquariums and for you to get your fresh fish from a farm. Crops are meant to be farmed, NOT fish. If you have any doubt, do a little research on fish farming and the potential health risks and risks to our oceans. Panama is only learning now the devastation that vast fish farms have brought their coast. If you get a chance, watch the film "Farming our Oceans/Seas" I can't remember the exact name but it reveals many of the facts that are being left out by those in favor of fish farming.
The salmon problems are unrelated to this issue and are both a result of water management practices and possibly some type of ocean phenomenon because Oregon and Washington are also experiencing low returns and there water management practices have not changed much in the last five years like ours.
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was enacted in 1999 to healthy populations of many species of marine wildlife. The intent was to do scientific sampling and studies to determine good management practices so that our fisheries remain healthy. This is a goal shared by the states natural ecologists, our fishermen who are actually out there interacting with and observing nature while harvesting fish for their consumption. Unfortunately, the government was unable to procure funding for this project and it languished for many years.
Several years ago, a protectionist group led by Julie Packard stepped forward and offered to fund all research and study with the publicly unstated goal of closing areas to fishing and human interaction. Anyone who has ever taken economics and statistics can guess how the source of funding would influence the data. In any case, there have been many stakeholders that have participated in the process to try and craft solutions that provide the required protection while minimizing the economic impact to local businesses. Three proposals have evolved from the process ... Proposal 1/3 is an incomplete work and will be difficult if not impossible to implement without much more work. Proposal 2xa is the proposal put forth by an alliance of several fishing and environmentalist groups. Proposal 4 is the one offered by the protectionist group led by Julie Packard and will affect over 25% of the Northern California coastline.
Interestingly, the Science Advisory Team(SAT) has found that Proposal 2xa is the only proposal to meet the SAT size and spacing guidelines for ALL the habitat types at the Moderate-High level of protection of higher. The other two proposals, 1/3 and 4, only meet the SAT guidelines at the Moderate level of protection. In other words, they have a "gap" in protection of at least one habitat. Proposal 4's economic impact would be devastating to businesses that rely upon the sea for their livelihood since they have closed most areas that are within a safe distance from local harbors. Small boaters will be forced to choose between fishing and their safety since they will have to run long distances to get to open areas and we all know how quickly weather conditions can change.
There is only one week left before the Blue Ribbon Task Force(BRTF) meets to recommend one of the porposals to the Department of Fish and Game. Proposal 2xa is the only realistic one which will protect fish, provide sanctuaries, and allow recreational use of our coastline by people in small boats. Check out http://www.coastsidefishingclub.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=MLPA for more information. Unfortunately the Packard Foundation runs the Monterey Aquarium and they are using this location to get people to unknowingly support their position without providing all of the facts. Please help kto keep ocean fishing alive for your children and grandchildren by spending no more than 3 minutes to visit this link: http://capwiz.com/keepamericafishing/issues/alert/?alertid=11225626 If you want to be even more effective take the time to write an email with some of the talking points that Mitch includes above and send them to MLPAComments at resources dot ca dot gov
Trust me, the protectionists will not stop at California's coastline. They want to turn our oceans into virtual aquariums and for you to get your fresh fish from a farm. Crops are meant to be farmed, NOT fish. If you have any doubt, do a little research on fish farming and the potential health risks and risks to our oceans. Panama is only learning now the devastation that vast fish farms have brought their coast. If you get a chance, watch the film "Farming our Oceans/Seas" I can't remember the exact name but it reveals many of the facts that are being left out by those in favor of fish farming.
Liz,
I'll have to watch the news to see who this handsome impostor is. I've been at work and have not done any interviews ... I hope my look alike was well versed on this issue and motivated folks to write a letter or to be at the meetings on April 22nd and 23rd.
I'll have to watch the news to see who this handsome impostor is. I've been at work and have not done any interviews ... I hope my look alike was well versed on this issue and motivated folks to write a letter or to be at the meetings on April 22nd and 23rd.
Pkjryan,
I just assumed these gentlemen were DFG because the three that I could clearly see were packing weapons.
We have seen more DFG officials on the water this year than we have in previous years. I think this is great. It is funny to watch boats pull anchor and leave when they see other boats being checked for licenses, etc. Gee, I wonder what they have to hide?
Last weekend we saw at least 5 large sturgeon jumping out of the water not more than 10 feet away from our boat. What a sight!
I just assumed these gentlemen were DFG because the three that I could clearly see were packing weapons.
We have seen more DFG officials on the water this year than we have in previous years. I think this is great. It is funny to watch boats pull anchor and leave when they see other boats being checked for licenses, etc. Gee, I wonder what they have to hide?
Last weekend we saw at least 5 large sturgeon jumping out of the water not more than 10 feet away from our boat. What a sight!
If they had weapons, they were Wardens. From what I have observed out in the waterways, if they smile and wave, no license. If they stare you down, license. This all people across the board. I sympathsize with the wardens plight as they are under funded and understaffed. Maybe this was a training officer and some newbies you saw? Anyways, nothing personal, again, just my two cents 
chiselchst
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- RO Number
- 19418
- Messages
- 199
We could use support!
April 22nd & April 23rd at:
Embassy Suites Hotel
101 McInnis Parkway
San Rafael, CA 94903
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:30 a.m.
Hope to see you there!
chiselchst
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- RO Number
- 19418
- Messages
- 199
Members of the public are invited to view or listen to the meeting via simultaneous
webcasting on the Internet. For more information please visit the Marine Life Protection Act
(MLPA) website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp.
Public participation: The public will be invited to offer comments on agenda items
throughout the meeting.
§ General comments on the MLPA Initiative and the work of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force,
not directed to specific agenda items, will be taken immediately after lunch on Tuesday,
April 22, 2008 at approximately 1:00 p.m. Speaker cards are requested and may be found at
the entrance to the room.
§ Public comment on the north central coast marine protected area proposals will be taken
at the end of agenda item #6; if necessary, public comment will be taken again at 7:00 p.m.
Speaker cards are requested and may be found at the entrance to the room.
Meeting Objectives
§ Receive detailed presentation of and review MLPA North Central Coast Regional
Stakeholder Group (NCCRSG) marine protected area (MPA) proposals submitted for the MLPA
North Central Coast Study Region, including MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT),
California Department of Fish and Game, and MLPA staff analyses and evaluations
§ Identify MPA proposals to forward to the California Fish and Game Commission, including
a preferred alternative
§ Identify any other recommendations to forward to the California Fish and Game Commission
§ Receive updates on the activities of the SAT, NCCRSG and MLPA Statewide Interests Group
§ Identify and potentially approve additional staffing and resource needs of the
initiative in the current phase and for other MLPA study regions
Meeting Agenda – Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Note: the task force and stakeholder group will break for lunch at approximately 12:15 p.m.
Welcome and Introductions
Susan Golding, Chair, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
9:30 a.m.
1. Update on the MLPA Initiative Process and Planning on the North Central Coast
a. Review of the decision-making context for the north central coast process
Ken Wiseman, Executive Director, MLPA Initiative
b. Update on the activities of the MLPA North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Scott McCreary, Ph.D., Co-facilitator, CONCUR, Inc.
c. Update on the activities of the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
Dr. Mary Gleason, Principal Planner, MLPA Initiative
d. Update on the activities of the MLPA Statewide Interests Group
Melissa Miller-Henson, Program Manager, MLPA Initiative
2. Summary of Water Quality Issues in the MLPA North Central Coast Study Region
Dominic Gregorio, State Water Resources Control Board and MLPA SAT
3. Overview of MPA Proposals Developed by NCCRSG Work Teams
Dr. Mary Gleason
4. Evaluations of NCCRSG MPA Proposals
a. Staff evaluations of proposals
Dr. Mary Gleason
b. Presentation of size and spacing evaluation
Dr. Steve Gaines, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
c. Presentation of habitat representation and replication evaluation
Dr. Mark Carr, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
d. Presentation of birds and mammals evaluations
Dr. Sarah Allen, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
e. Presentation of commercial and recreational fishing evaluations
Dr. Astrid Scholz, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
f. Presentation of abalone evaluation
Susan Ashcraft, Marine Protected Areas Supervisor, California Department of Fish and Game
5. California Department of Fish and Game Feasibility Criteria and Analysis
Susan Ashcraft
6. MPA Proposals Developed by Work Teams of the Regional Stakeholder Group
a. Stakeholder presentations of MPA proposals
b. Discussion of MPA proposals among BRTF and NCCRSG members
c. Public comment on the NCCRSG MPA proposals (note that, if necessary, public comment
will be taken again at 7:00 p.m. after dinner)
7. Recognition of Members of the North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Break for dinner
Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Note: The task force will break for lunch at approximately 12:00 noon
Welcome
Susan Golding
8:30 a.m.
8. MLPA North Central Coast Study Region
a. Process considerations for the task force
b. Discussion among BRTF members about NCCRSG MPA proposals and recommendations to the
California Fish and Game Commission
c. Identify proposals and recommendations for the north central coast to forward to the
California Fish and Game Commission, including a preferred alternative
9. Planning and Resources
Update on MLPA Initiative staffing and budget, and planning for future study regions;
potentially approve additional staffing and resource needs for the initiative in the current
phase and for completing other MLPA study regions
Ken Wiseman
10. MLPA Central Coast Study Region
Update on implementing the central coast MPAs
webcasting on the Internet. For more information please visit the Marine Life Protection Act
(MLPA) website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings.asp.
Public participation: The public will be invited to offer comments on agenda items
throughout the meeting.
§ General comments on the MLPA Initiative and the work of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force,
not directed to specific agenda items, will be taken immediately after lunch on Tuesday,
April 22, 2008 at approximately 1:00 p.m. Speaker cards are requested and may be found at
the entrance to the room.
§ Public comment on the north central coast marine protected area proposals will be taken
at the end of agenda item #6; if necessary, public comment will be taken again at 7:00 p.m.
Speaker cards are requested and may be found at the entrance to the room.
Meeting Objectives
§ Receive detailed presentation of and review MLPA North Central Coast Regional
Stakeholder Group (NCCRSG) marine protected area (MPA) proposals submitted for the MLPA
North Central Coast Study Region, including MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT),
California Department of Fish and Game, and MLPA staff analyses and evaluations
§ Identify MPA proposals to forward to the California Fish and Game Commission, including
a preferred alternative
§ Identify any other recommendations to forward to the California Fish and Game Commission
§ Receive updates on the activities of the SAT, NCCRSG and MLPA Statewide Interests Group
§ Identify and potentially approve additional staffing and resource needs of the
initiative in the current phase and for other MLPA study regions
Meeting Agenda – Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Note: the task force and stakeholder group will break for lunch at approximately 12:15 p.m.
Welcome and Introductions
Susan Golding, Chair, MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
9:30 a.m.
1. Update on the MLPA Initiative Process and Planning on the North Central Coast
a. Review of the decision-making context for the north central coast process
Ken Wiseman, Executive Director, MLPA Initiative
b. Update on the activities of the MLPA North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Scott McCreary, Ph.D., Co-facilitator, CONCUR, Inc.
c. Update on the activities of the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
Dr. Mary Gleason, Principal Planner, MLPA Initiative
d. Update on the activities of the MLPA Statewide Interests Group
Melissa Miller-Henson, Program Manager, MLPA Initiative
2. Summary of Water Quality Issues in the MLPA North Central Coast Study Region
Dominic Gregorio, State Water Resources Control Board and MLPA SAT
3. Overview of MPA Proposals Developed by NCCRSG Work Teams
Dr. Mary Gleason
4. Evaluations of NCCRSG MPA Proposals
a. Staff evaluations of proposals
Dr. Mary Gleason
b. Presentation of size and spacing evaluation
Dr. Steve Gaines, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
c. Presentation of habitat representation and replication evaluation
Dr. Mark Carr, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
d. Presentation of birds and mammals evaluations
Dr. Sarah Allen, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
e. Presentation of commercial and recreational fishing evaluations
Dr. Astrid Scholz, MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team
f. Presentation of abalone evaluation
Susan Ashcraft, Marine Protected Areas Supervisor, California Department of Fish and Game
5. California Department of Fish and Game Feasibility Criteria and Analysis
Susan Ashcraft
6. MPA Proposals Developed by Work Teams of the Regional Stakeholder Group
a. Stakeholder presentations of MPA proposals
b. Discussion of MPA proposals among BRTF and NCCRSG members
c. Public comment on the NCCRSG MPA proposals (note that, if necessary, public comment
will be taken again at 7:00 p.m. after dinner)
7. Recognition of Members of the North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group
Break for dinner
Meeting Agenda - Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Note: The task force will break for lunch at approximately 12:00 noon
Welcome
Susan Golding
8:30 a.m.
8. MLPA North Central Coast Study Region
a. Process considerations for the task force
b. Discussion among BRTF members about NCCRSG MPA proposals and recommendations to the
California Fish and Game Commission
c. Identify proposals and recommendations for the north central coast to forward to the
California Fish and Game Commission, including a preferred alternative
9. Planning and Resources
Update on MLPA Initiative staffing and budget, and planning for future study regions;
potentially approve additional staffing and resource needs for the initiative in the current
phase and for completing other MLPA study regions
Ken Wiseman
10. MLPA Central Coast Study Region
Update on implementing the central coast MPAs
Mitch, thanks for such a thorough response! I wish I could attend, but at this time it is impossible for me to make a trip to the bay area. Best of luck and please post the results of this or at least a news link when that is available......
chiselchst
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- RO Number
- 19418
- Messages
- 199
You got it!