MLPA process gets more than a little bit fishy, pro-fishing groups claim

A reader shared an interesting observation this week regarding the controversial Marine Life Protection Actprocess, an ongoing saga that ultimately will set in place a coast-widenetwork of zones that will become off-limits to fishermen or carrysevere restrictions.

The process is already complete off CentralCalifornia and is close to being complete off the North-Central Coast.Southern California is now the primary theater.

The readerwondered how California, which is so broke that it plans to cut allcore funding for 279 state parks, can afford to continue with a processof establishing underwater parks that will require steady andsignificant funding for enforcement of rules and to evaluate theireffectiveness.

Short answer: The state is receiving privatefunding for the process and will worry about future funding once theprocess is complete and  no-take zones are in place. And what a crazyprocess it has become, especially if you're a fisherman or in thefishing industry and facing an uncertain future.

At issue thisweek, as all parties prepare for another Blue Ribbon Task Force meetingThursday morning near LAX, is external proposal "C." It's the mostextreme proposal (pictured above and below; the red areas are no-takemarine protected areas) and probably should have been scuttled by now.

(Itmay soon be discarded, although most fishermen are not aware of thatyet, and they're still seething over what transpired during the lastmeeting in Santa Ana.)

Brieflyput, members of the South Coast Regional Stakeholders Group wereinstructed to vote on four of five proposals to further narrow options.External C, which calls for 47 marine protected areas or about  33% ofthe Southern California coastline to be designated as marine protectedareas, received the fewest votes.