DFG Commissioner responds to Chrisman's letter..........

Discussion in 'Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA)' started by Laukia, Jun 23, 2009.

Share This Page

  1. Laukia

    click to enlarge

  2. gpomplin

  3. Sluester

    Click on it 2 times.
  4. Redline

    I hope the eco-taliban don't car bomb Richards.
  5. rojodiablo

    Nice to see the F&G commissioners at least have a couple members who are grounded in reality.
  6. J Graham

    1/2 full or 1/2 empty? I dont think we should be busting on a guy that appears to be trying to help. Not on a pro fishing forum. Better to put this comment on PETA's website Stevo.
  7. M/V Santa Rosa Advertiser

    I just cant wait for this to all be over , so everyone can say

    "see I told you so"

    you should have stuck with so and so, and listen to me next time...
  8. Laukia

    "In the April or May meeting, he basically verbally abused a Green Peace guy during the public speaking session. The entire room was aghast over his comments and that included fellow Commissioners"

    I remember that exchange. The guy from Greenpeace was speaking in support of Proposal 4 (the most restrictive). In the course of his speech he advocated closing 50% of the Coast as being economically beneficial. After he was done speaking, before he left the podium Commissioner Richards asked him if he heard him correctly, if he was really saying it was responsible to protect 50% of the ocean. The Greenpeace guy said yes, that was what he was saying. Commissioner Richards responded, "Really?...........Then you are not very credible". That's hardly verbal abuse. The only reaction I heard in the room was from a couple enviro ladies as the wind went out of their sails.
  9. rojodiablo

    C'mon Dave...drink the Kool-Aide, join the club......:picknose:
  10. zenspearo

    oh shit.

    Now we have a Commissioner doing what he feels is right versus worrying about getting appointed to another term.

    We are screwed for sure.;)
  11. Laukia

    I hardly see that as an attack. Certainly not verbal abuse. I went back and looked at the video. I don't see any reaction from the Commissioners. Folks can view for themselves if interested. It seems like a shining moment to me. It may just be the opinion of the Greenpeace guy but it's clearly extreme. Richards was right on calling him on it. JMO.

    here's the link. Hit "click to start" then move the slide to 4:38:44 to hear the Green Peace guy.
    CFG Archive Page
  12. edsofish

    With Commissioner Richards reply to the Greenpeace representative came a clear message to everyone that making blanket, "off the wall" statements that only fuel the fires of an already intense situation will not go unchallenged. His reply also aided in supporting the continued interest and participation from many individuals who have spent a lot of time and money to make the best proposal for consumptive users as well as the people of California both biologically and socioeconomically.

    I, personally, find this kind of action refreshing and think it would go a long way in the process if the BRTF took the same position during RSG meetings where less knowledgeable persons make misleading or false statements in order to support a particular agenda were held accountable for their statements and actions. These false statements leave the "burden of proof" upon more knowledgeable persons within the RSG, but, this takes time and by the time the proof is provided minds have been made up, the moment has passed, and we are left with results that are not based on truth.

    As for lobbyists targeting the Legislature for securing long term funding sources or even short term funding sources there is little discussion. Consider the most important aspect of the MPA's will be that of monitoring, enforcement, and public outreach. If long term dependable funds are not available to accomplish these elements, we are all wasting a lot of time and money and are only making perpetual "no fishing zones" that will do nothing for the people of California or the ecosystem. MPA's may very well damage the ecosystem as a whole and without monitoring inside and outside of them we will never know, and if we do find out, it may be too late. So, it is most appropriate for those of us who stand to loose a lot to ensure there is funding to make sure the intent of the MPA's have the best possible chance of success.

    If available funds are only being provided for the planning stage, as Mr. Wiseman has stated, and there are no further dependable long term funds available for completing the remaining phases of implementation, then we must reconsider what we are doing and be realistic in our approach. If this means suspending the process or stopping it altogether or having the Legislature come up with a different plan, so be it. Given the extreme effect the MLPAI will have on California, all avenues of interest must be explored in order to "get it right" the first time, MPA's or not. If MPA's are feasable in the context of the MLPAI then OK, but if they are not feasable as the law dictates, then STOP.