What Type of Marine Protection Is This?

Open Letter to Karen Garrison, Kaitilin Gaffney and Warner Chabot

Your recent letter refers to a post that I sent to the Progressive Caucus List Serve, a private discussion list for activists, where I strongly criticized Senate Assembly Speaker John Pérez for writing a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission that endorsed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.

I recently attended a protest of 300 Tribal members, immigrant workers, seaweed harvesters, environmentalists and fishermen in Fort Bragg against the MLPA’s violation of Tribal gathering and fishing rights. It was the most moving protest I have ever been to. After I came back, I was shocked to see that Pérez letter endorsed the MLPA Initiative at a time when it is under increasing criticism from diverse communities throughout California.

In the heat of the moment after I read the Speaker's letter, I wrote, “In my opinion, everybody who cares about environmental justice in California should call for the resignation of California Assembly Speaker John Pérez, who is shamefully supporting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's corrupt and racist Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.”

In retrospect, that call for his resignation was not appropriate. So I formally retract my call for his resignation. However, I need to make it clear that I never posted a call for his resignation on any of my public blogs.

What I really want the Speaker to do is listen and take action to address the concerns of the growing coalition of Indian Tribes, fishermen, immigrant workers and environments that oppose the current implementation of the MLPA under Schwarzenegger.

In my following post on my blogs, I said “If Pérez truly cares about environmental justice and his legacy, he should use his power to convene a legislative oversight hearing to investigate the conflicts of interest, total disregard for indigenous fishing and gathering rights, violation of numerous state and federal laws and greenwashing that have plagued the MLPA Initiative since Schwarzenegger privatized it in 2004. Further, he should call upon the Governor to immediately suspend the MLPA process until this hearing is conducted.”

I continue to call on the Speaker to take those two actions.

You say, “Assembly Speaker John Pérez is an environmental and social justice leader. With a lifetime score of 91 percent from the California League of Conservation Voters, he has a proven track record of fighting for environmental justice, working to improve recycling programs and creating clean tech jobs. He has dedicated his career to helping working class Californians build a better future for themselves and their families by protecting our state’s natural resources.”

I concur with you on this. I laud the Speaker's hard work on AB 890, the law passed last fall to address chronic pollution (manganese) to the City of Maywood's water supply. However, I strongly disagree with Perez on his support of the MLPA Initiative.

In his letter, Pérez said he supports "the strongest possible network of marine protected areas based on science" along California's southern Coast.

"You have a historic opportunity to create a legacy for southern California's oceans and generations to come,” stated Pérez. “Please adopt the protections most likely to provide lasting benefits for all Californians by choosing the strongest possible option of Marine Protected Areas in southern California.”

In a similar vein, you say in your letter, “Marine protected areas are popular because they are good for the ocean, good for our coastal tourism-driven economy, good for Californians’ quality of life, and good for our future. Speaker Perez deserves nothing but praise for supporting such protection.”

Unfortunately, the MLPA as implemented on the South, Central, North Central and North Coasts of California has completely taken oil drilling, water pollution, wave energy projects, corporate aquaculture, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean off the table other than fishing and gathering. The law, as now implemented, would do nothing to stop an ecological catastrophe like the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from devastating the California coast.

What type of marine protection is this?

Many critics of the Initiative believe that the privatization of California ocean and bay management through an initiative privately funded by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation is very bad public policy. This process has violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, the California Public Records Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and other laws.

The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces appointed by Schwarzenegger include oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests whom many believe have clear conflicts of interest in the process.

In fact, the "strongest possible option of Marine Protected Areas" that the Speaker supports was crafted under the leadership of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association and the chair of the South Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, who has called for new oil drilling off the California coast.

Pérez is also the author of the "rigs to reef" legislation on behalf of the oil industry that saves them billions in the decommissioning of oil rigs off Southern California, so his strong support of oil industry supported "marine protected areas" that also insulate them from pesky environmental regulations really worries me, in spite of his overall strong environmental record.

“Under the Marine Life Protection Act, Californians are coming together to decide exactly where and how to design marine protected area plans,” you state. “Meetings are open to the public, are well attended, and every voice has a chance to be heard. Throughout the state, adopted marine protected areas reflect a thoughtful balance between conserving ocean habitat and providing for sustainable fishing.”

In spite of your claims, thousands of Tribal members, fishermen, immigrant workers, environmentalists, seaweed harvesters and other Californians feel that their voices are not being heard in the process.

“Those of us who have been involved in creating these marine protected areas under the MLPA Initiative, the citizens who will be locked out of areas in the ocean where we have recreated, fished, and made a living for years, know from personal experience that ‘the most open and transparent process ever,’ the one with “unprecedented transparency and stakeholder involvement” -- is anything but,” said Jim Martin, the West Coast Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, in his recent article in the Capitol Weekly.

In fact, the members of 50 Indian Nations and their allies who participated in the historic direct action in Fort Bragg on July 21 felt so disenfranchised by this allegedly “open and transparent process” that they are willing to risk arrest to defend their sovereign right to gather and practice their religion as they have done for thousands of years.

Thomas O’Rourke, the chair of the Yurok Tribal Council, told the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force on July 21, “We as an Indian Nation have the right to manage our resources. The people who have managed for the last 200 years haven’t done so well in managing the land and our coast."

“It is wise to listen to the people who managed these lands for thousands of years,” he continued. “We believe in protecting species. We will continue to exercise our right to harvest seaweed and fish as we always have. You have to take us to jail until you go broke and you fix this law.”

The Yurok Tribe has a representative, Megan Rocha, on the MLPA’s Regional Stakeholder group. However, O’Rourke said the MLPA process has viewed tribes exactly the same as recreational fishermen, even though tribes are sovereign nations.

“There is nothing more offensive than the lack of recognition we have received from the Initiative,” he stated. “We are a sovereign government within the State of California and should be treated accordingly. We would like the Blue Ribbon Task Force to do what is morally right and remove tribes from this inappropriate process.”

I’m glad to engage the three of you in this dialogue. I would strongly urge you to support an oversight hearing to investigate the MLPA Initiative. Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez last year proposed such a hearing, but Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg apparently squashed it. Assemblyman Wes Chesbro also announced at this spring’s Legislative Fisheries Form that he planned to hold a hearing on the MLPA. I encourage you to support these efforts.

I’d look forward to continued dialogue over the MLPA and want to pose to you the following questions, questions that I have thought long and hard about, for you to consider:

Why did the Governor and MLPA officials install an oil industry lobbyist, a marina developer, a real estate executive and other corporate interests as "marine guardians" to remove Indian Tribes, fishermen and seaweed harvesters from the water? Isn't this very bad public policy?

Why is Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, allowed to make decisions as the chair of the BRTF for the South Coast and as a member of the BRTF for the North Coast, panels that are supposedly designed to "protect" the ocean, when she has called for new oil drilling off the California coast? Do we want to see oil rigs off Point Arena, Fort Bragg and other areas of some of the most beautiful coastline of North America?

Why is a private corporation, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, being allowed to privatize ocean resource management in California through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DFG?

Why do the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and Science Advisory Team continue to violate the California Public Records Act by refusing to respond to numerous requests by Bob Fletcher, former DFG Deputy Director, for key documents and records pertaining to the MLPA implementation process?

Why do MLPA staff and the California Fish and Game Commission refuse to hear the pleas of the representatives of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, who oppose the creation of any new MPAs until they have enough funding for wardens to patrol existing reserves?

Why did MLPA staff until recently violate the Bagley-Keene Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by banning video and audio coverage of the initiative's work sessions?

Why has the Initiative shown no respect for tribal subsistence and ceremonial rights? This is an overt violation of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 32, Section 2, of the Declaration mandates "free prior and informed consent" in consultation with the indigenous population affected by a state action (http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp).

Why are there no Tribal scientists on the MLPA Science Advisory Team and why were there no Tribal representatives on the Blue Ribbon Task Forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast or South Coast MLPA Study Regions?

Why does the initiative discard the results of any scientists who disagree with the MLPA's pre-ordained conclusions? These include the peer reviewed study by Dr. Ray Hilbert, Dr. Boris Worm and 18 other scientists, featured in Science magazine in July 2009, that concluded that the California current had the lowest rate of fishery exploitation of any place studied on the planet.

Why does the MLPA Initiative refuse to acknowledge California Indian Tribes as sovereign nations?

Finally, why did 300 Tribal members, fishermen, immigrant workers and environmentalists on July 21 feel so left out of the MLPA process that they had to organize a march and direct action to take over a MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting so their voices would be finally heard?

I’ll leave you with a quote from Frankie Joe Myers, a Yurok Tribal citizen and organizer of the Coastal Justice Coalition:

“This is about more than a fouled-up process that attempts to prohibit tribes from doing something they have done sustainably for thousands of years. It is about respect, acknowledgement and recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights.”

For more information about the tribal perspective on the MLPA process, I urge you to go to the Coastal Justice Coalition's website: http://www.klamathjustice.blogspot.com.

Thanks

Dan Bacher


Letter to the Progressive Caucus List Serve, July 28, 2010

Assembly Speaker John Perez is an environmental and social justice leader. With a lifetime score of 91 percent from the California League of Conservation Voters, he has a proven track record of fighting for environmental justice, working to improve recycling programs and creating clean tech jobs. He has dedicated his career to helping working class Californians build a better future for themselves and their families by protecting our state’s natural resources.

But that hasn’t stopped a fishing industry blogger from making false and ludicrous accusations against him and calling for him to resign. The Speaker’s alleged offense? Supporting ocean protection.

Speaker Perez, like scores of California elected leaders and most Californians, supports the Marine Life Protection Act, California's landmark ocean protection law. The MLPA won bipartisan support of nearly two thirds of the legislature when it passed in 1999. A recent poll confirms that over 70 percent of California voters support the creation of marine protected areas with support particularly high in southern California, which the Speaker ably represents. Marine protected areas are popular because they are good for the ocean, good for our coastal tourism-driven economy, good for Californians’ quality of life, and good for our future. Speaker Perez deserves nothing but praise for supporting such protection.

Look at the facts. Science shows that ocean protected areas like those created under the MLPA work. These underwater parks produce more and bigger fish and richer marine life than fished areas. Scientific studies show that well designed protected areas can actually increase the overall fish catch, and that’s good for fishermen as well as for fish. The Channel Islands marine reserve network, in place off the Santa Barbara coast for six years now, is a resounding success story.

Under the Marine Life Protection Act, Californians are coming together to decide exactly where and how to design marine protected area plans. Meetings are open to the public, are well attended, and every voice has a chance to be heard. Throughout the state, adopted marine protected areas reflect a thoughtful balance between conserving ocean habitat and providing for sustainable fishing.

Speaker Perez’s district includes diverse constituents who visit and enjoy the coast and ocean and want to leave it in better shape for their kids, whether they swim, surf, dive, fish, watch wildlife or just hang out on the beach. His support for the Marine Life Protection Act is a common sense way to represent those constituents and all Californians. We applaud him for his leadership.

Karen Garrison, Ocean Program Co-Director, NRDC
Kaitilin Gaffney, Pacific Program Director, Ocean Conservancy
Warner Chabot, CEO, California League of Conservation Voters