Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
MLPA officials refused to include Tribal scientists in process
No Tribal scientists were allowed to serve on the MLPA Science Advisory Teams, in spite of the fact that North Coast Indian Tribes have large natural resources and fisheries departments staffed with many fishery biologists and other scientists. And it wasn't until 2010, six years after the MLPA process was privatized, that the first Tribal representative on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Photo: Frankie Joe Myers, Yurok Tribal member and Coastal Justice Coalition activist, testifies at the Fish and Game Commission's MLPA Initiative in Sacramento on February 2.
Photo: Frankie Joe Myers, Yurok Tribal member and Coastal Justice Coalition activist, testifies at the Fish and Game Commission's MLPA Initiative in Sacramento on February 2.
MLPA Officials refused to Include Tribal scientists in process
by Dan Bacher
One of the most persistent myths promulgated by advocates of the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative is that the so-called "marine protected areas" created under the process are "based on science."
However, the "science" that the MLPA is based on is extremely shaky. In the 7 years since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger privatized the process by directing the Department of Fish and Game to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the shadowy Resources Legacy Foundation, MLPA officials have refused to consult with Tribal scientists and integrate Tribal knowledge into the process.
No Tribal scientists were allowed to serve on the MLPA Science Advisory Teams, in spite of the fact that North Coast Indian Tribes have large natural resources and fisheries departments staffed with many fishery biologists and other scientists. And it wasn't until 2010, six years after the MLPA process was privatized, that the first Tribal representative on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In fact, MLPA officials turned down a request by Yurok Tribe lawyers and scientists last August to make a presentation to the MLPA Science Advisory Team. The Yurok Fisheries Department alone has a staff of over 70 people. Among other data, they were going to present data of test results from other marine reserves regarding mussels.
"The data would have shown that there was not a statistically difference in the diversity of species from the harvested and un-harvested areas," wrote John Corbett, Yurok Tribe Senior Attorney, in a letter to the Science Advisory Team on January 12. "The presentation would have encompassed the work of Smith, J.R. Gong and RF Ambrose, 2008, 'The Impacts of Human Visitation on Mussel Bed Communities along the California Coast: Are Regulatory Marine Reserves Effective in Protecting these Communities.'"
However the "scientists" and MLPA officials didn't want to see data that conflicted with their pre-determined conclusions.
"The Yurok Tribe feels an opportunity was lost to work collaboratively to come up with an improved Level of Protection conceptional model," concluded Corbett. "Although the time is past with the SAT, we will continue to work with the California Fish and Game Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game."
Thomas O'Rourke, chair of the Yurok Tribe, exposed the ridiculousness of the contention by some scientists that the Tribes, who have been harvesting seaweed, mussels, abalone and other species for thousands of years, are "negatively impacting" the ecosystem during his presentation at the Fish and Game Commission meeting in Sacramento on February 2.
"There is no evidence that tribes have had a negative impact upon the ecosystem," said O'Rourke. "They have been part of the ecosystem since time immemorial. Science needs to recognize people as part of the ecosystem. If you don't include people, the proposal will fail. Our rights are not negotiable."
Likewise, Mike Belchik, fisheries biologist and head of the Yurok Fisheries Program, criticized the "flawed assumptions and flawed science" underlying the MLPA. "The idea that to get a natural baseline you subtract humans has been largely discredited," emphasized Belchik.
During the historic direct action protest by a coalition of over 50 Tribes and their allies in Fort Bragg, Frankie Joe Myers, Yurok Tribal member and Coastal Justice Coalition activist, exposed the institutional racism and refusal to incorporate Tribal science that underlies the fake "science" of the MLPA process.
"The MLPA process completely disregards tribal gathering rights and only permits discussion of commercial and recreational harvest," he said. "The whole process is inherently flawed by institutionalized racism. It doesn't recognize Tribes as political entities, or Tribal biologists as legitimate scientists."
On a lighter note, during his testimony in a Legislative hearing about the MLPA in Eureka on January 21, Yurok Tribal elder Walt Lara told a story about four people on an airplane.
"One was a Doctor, the second was a Scientist, the third was a Boy Scout and the fourth was an Indian," said Lara. "When the plane started to go down, they discovered there were only three parachutes."
Lara continued, "The Doctor said he had saved many lives, and would continue to save many people, so he had to live. The Doctor grabbed a parachute and jumped out of the plane. The Scientist said he had made a lot of important discoveries and he was the smartest guy in the world, so he grabbed the second parachute and jumped."
"The Indian told the Boy Scout, 'Look, I've lived a long life, and you have your whole life ahead of you. You take the last parachute.'"
"The Boy Scout said, 'No need for that. The smartest guy in the world just jumped out of the plane with my backpack.'"
Walt Lara has been a relentless defender of tribal rights and advocate for salmon for decades - and provided me and other reporters with a detailed first person account of the Klamath River fish kill in September 2002 as the unprecedented environmental tragedy unfolded.
Under Schwarzenegger, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was eviscerated. MLPA officials took water pollution, oil spills and drilling, corporate aquaculture, wave energy projects, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean than fishing and gathering off the table in their bizarre concept of "marine protection." The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversaw the process included an oil industry lobbyist, marina developer, coastal real estate executive and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interests.
The MLPA Initiative has violated numerous state, federal and international laws. These include the California Public Records Act, Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, California Administrative Procedure Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
by Dan Bacher
One of the most persistent myths promulgated by advocates of the privately-funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative is that the so-called "marine protected areas" created under the process are "based on science."
However, the "science" that the MLPA is based on is extremely shaky. In the 7 years since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger privatized the process by directing the Department of Fish and Game to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the shadowy Resources Legacy Foundation, MLPA officials have refused to consult with Tribal scientists and integrate Tribal knowledge into the process.
No Tribal scientists were allowed to serve on the MLPA Science Advisory Teams, in spite of the fact that North Coast Indian Tribes have large natural resources and fisheries departments staffed with many fishery biologists and other scientists. And it wasn't until 2010, six years after the MLPA process was privatized, that the first Tribal representative on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In fact, MLPA officials turned down a request by Yurok Tribe lawyers and scientists last August to make a presentation to the MLPA Science Advisory Team. The Yurok Fisheries Department alone has a staff of over 70 people. Among other data, they were going to present data of test results from other marine reserves regarding mussels.
"The data would have shown that there was not a statistically difference in the diversity of species from the harvested and un-harvested areas," wrote John Corbett, Yurok Tribe Senior Attorney, in a letter to the Science Advisory Team on January 12. "The presentation would have encompassed the work of Smith, J.R. Gong and RF Ambrose, 2008, 'The Impacts of Human Visitation on Mussel Bed Communities along the California Coast: Are Regulatory Marine Reserves Effective in Protecting these Communities.'"
However the "scientists" and MLPA officials didn't want to see data that conflicted with their pre-determined conclusions.
"The Yurok Tribe feels an opportunity was lost to work collaboratively to come up with an improved Level of Protection conceptional model," concluded Corbett. "Although the time is past with the SAT, we will continue to work with the California Fish and Game Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game."
Thomas O'Rourke, chair of the Yurok Tribe, exposed the ridiculousness of the contention by some scientists that the Tribes, who have been harvesting seaweed, mussels, abalone and other species for thousands of years, are "negatively impacting" the ecosystem during his presentation at the Fish and Game Commission meeting in Sacramento on February 2.
"There is no evidence that tribes have had a negative impact upon the ecosystem," said O'Rourke. "They have been part of the ecosystem since time immemorial. Science needs to recognize people as part of the ecosystem. If you don't include people, the proposal will fail. Our rights are not negotiable."
Likewise, Mike Belchik, fisheries biologist and head of the Yurok Fisheries Program, criticized the "flawed assumptions and flawed science" underlying the MLPA. "The idea that to get a natural baseline you subtract humans has been largely discredited," emphasized Belchik.
During the historic direct action protest by a coalition of over 50 Tribes and their allies in Fort Bragg, Frankie Joe Myers, Yurok Tribal member and Coastal Justice Coalition activist, exposed the institutional racism and refusal to incorporate Tribal science that underlies the fake "science" of the MLPA process.
"The MLPA process completely disregards tribal gathering rights and only permits discussion of commercial and recreational harvest," he said. "The whole process is inherently flawed by institutionalized racism. It doesn't recognize Tribes as political entities, or Tribal biologists as legitimate scientists."
On a lighter note, during his testimony in a Legislative hearing about the MLPA in Eureka on January 21, Yurok Tribal elder Walt Lara told a story about four people on an airplane.
"One was a Doctor, the second was a Scientist, the third was a Boy Scout and the fourth was an Indian," said Lara. "When the plane started to go down, they discovered there were only three parachutes."
Lara continued, "The Doctor said he had saved many lives, and would continue to save many people, so he had to live. The Doctor grabbed a parachute and jumped out of the plane. The Scientist said he had made a lot of important discoveries and he was the smartest guy in the world, so he grabbed the second parachute and jumped."
"The Indian told the Boy Scout, 'Look, I've lived a long life, and you have your whole life ahead of you. You take the last parachute.'"
"The Boy Scout said, 'No need for that. The smartest guy in the world just jumped out of the plane with my backpack.'"
Walt Lara has been a relentless defender of tribal rights and advocate for salmon for decades - and provided me and other reporters with a detailed first person account of the Klamath River fish kill in September 2002 as the unprecedented environmental tragedy unfolded.
Under Schwarzenegger, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was eviscerated. MLPA officials took water pollution, oil spills and drilling, corporate aquaculture, wave energy projects, habitat destruction and all other human uses of the ocean than fishing and gathering off the table in their bizarre concept of "marine protection." The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversaw the process included an oil industry lobbyist, marina developer, coastal real estate executive and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interests.
The MLPA Initiative has violated numerous state, federal and international laws. These include the California Public Records Act, Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, California Administrative Procedure Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
There he goes again ... Mr. Bacher is a paid shill for the foreign fishing interests behind the so-called "Partnership for Sustainable Oceans." This organization is funded by foreign fishing equipment interests, including Shimano, whose only goal is to sell more fishing equipment -- not protect the ocean or stop overfishing.
This article is yet another "red herring" from propagandist Bacher.
The science is sound. The Fish & Game Commission repeatedly has said so.
Enough with the racism, Dan. MLPA is supported by everyone except those with a vested interest.
This article is yet another "red herring" from propagandist Bacher.
The science is sound. The Fish & Game Commission repeatedly has said so.
Enough with the racism, Dan. MLPA is supported by everyone except those with a vested interest.
Hey Disinformation Squad - answer the questions!
Since you have no basis for your "argument" in support of the MLPA Initiative, you have to resort to absurd claims that anybody who opposes the corruption and conflicts of interests of the privately funded MLPA fiasco represents "foreign fishing interests."
How can you possibly support a process that on the South Coast was overseen by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, and a proponent of new offshore oil drilling off the California coast? In one of the most egregious conflicts of interest in California history, Reheis-Boyd was chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast.
Officials from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, you and other MLPA supporters keep repeating the lie that the process is “open, transparent and inclusive” and “science-based."
The proponents of the process refuse to address the many criticisms that advocates of true ocean protection have leveled against the MLPA Initiative. I have challenged MLPA proponents to answer a series of hard questions that cut to the core of the current MLPA process.
You and other MLPA proponents have failed to respond to my specific questions, but only continue to repeat your unsubstantiated claims that the Initiative is “open, transparent and inclusive” and that anybody who criticizes the initiative is an opponent of “ocean protection.”
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) is a comprehensive, landmark law that was signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999. The MLPA, as amended in 2004, is very broad in its scope.
The law was intended to not only restrict or prohibit fishing in a network of “marine protected areas,” but to restrict or prohibit other human activities including coastal development and water pollution.
“Coastal development, water pollution, and other human activities threaten the health of marine habitat and the biological diversity found in California’s ocean waters,” the law states in Fish and Game Code Section 2851, section c.
The law also broadly defines a “marine protected area” (MPA) as “a named, discrete geographic marine or estuarine area seaward of the mean high tide line or the mouth of a coastal river, including any area of inertial or sub tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora and fauna that has been designated by law, administrative action, or voter initiative to protect or conserve marine life and habitat” (Fish and Game Code 2852, section c).
Furthermore, the law also defines a “Marine life reserve,” as “a marine protected area in which all extractive activities, including the taking of marine species, and, at the discretion of the commission and within the authority of the commission, other activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area, are prohibited. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state” (Fish and Game Code 2852, section d).
However, the implementation of the law has become a parody of real marine protection. The MLPA process has taken oil drilling, water pollution, wave energy development, habitat destruction and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table. The MLPA would do nothing to stop another Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon oil disaster from devastating the California coast.
Here are the questions:
Why did Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 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 by creating so-called “marine protected areas” (MPAS)? Isn’t this very bad public policy?
Why was 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 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 little or no respect for tribal subsistence and ceremonial rights? In fact, it was only because of massive opposition by North Coast Tribes and their allies that an amendment that would have terminated tribal fishing and gathering rights failed to pass during a special MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force teleconference meeting held in Fort Bragg, Crescent City and Eureka on December 9.
Since the MLPA was privatized in 2004, the initiative has violated 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).
The MLPA also violates Article 26, Section 3, that declares, “States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.”
The unified proposal adopted by North Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force is the first MLPA proposal that acknowledges tribal gathering and fishing rights, a tribute to the hard work of the Tribal, fishing and environmental stakeholders? However, why did it take 6 years for this to happen?
Why were 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? Isn’t this a case of institutional racism on behalf of MLPA officials?
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 Hilborn, 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 did the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force hold illegal secret meetings, including those held in April 2007 and on November 3, 2008, December 10, 2008, February 25, 2009, October 20, 21 and 22, 2009? Why did it take a lawsuit to get the emails and correspondence by MLPA officials documenting these private, non-public meetings disclosed to the public?
Finally, why did 300 Tribal members, fishermen, immigrant workers and environmentalists 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 in Fort Bragg of July 21 so their voices would be finally heard?
Proponents of the MLPA Initiative have failed to address the many criticisms of the MLPA process by Indian Tribes, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, conservationists and environmental justice advocates.
Real environmentalists support true, comprehensive ocean protection as the MLPA originally intended, not the facade of protection that Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative provides.
Real environmentalists don’t support a process that has gone to great lengths to take oil drilling, water pollution, wave energy development, habitat destruction, military testing and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table in its perverse concept of marine “protection.”
Finally, real environmentalists oppose the privatization of ocean conservation that has occurred under the MLPA Initiative.
The MLPA process must be seen in the context of the campaign by the Schwarzenegger administration, corporate media, some NGOs and political hacks to greenwash the environmental legacy of the worst Governor in California history for fish, water and the environment. This is the same Governor who presided over the unprecedented collapse of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other fish species, relentlessly campaigned for the construction of an environmentally destructive and enormously expensive peripheral canal and new dams and vetoed numerous laws protecting fish, water and the environment.
Since you have no basis for your "argument" in support of the MLPA Initiative, you have to resort to absurd claims that anybody who opposes the corruption and conflicts of interests of the privately funded MLPA fiasco represents "foreign fishing interests."
How can you possibly support a process that on the South Coast was overseen by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, and a proponent of new offshore oil drilling off the California coast? In one of the most egregious conflicts of interest in California history, Reheis-Boyd was chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast.
Officials from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, you and other MLPA supporters keep repeating the lie that the process is “open, transparent and inclusive” and “science-based."
The proponents of the process refuse to address the many criticisms that advocates of true ocean protection have leveled against the MLPA Initiative. I have challenged MLPA proponents to answer a series of hard questions that cut to the core of the current MLPA process.
You and other MLPA proponents have failed to respond to my specific questions, but only continue to repeat your unsubstantiated claims that the Initiative is “open, transparent and inclusive” and that anybody who criticizes the initiative is an opponent of “ocean protection.”
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) is a comprehensive, landmark law that was signed by Governor Gray Davis in 1999. The MLPA, as amended in 2004, is very broad in its scope.
The law was intended to not only restrict or prohibit fishing in a network of “marine protected areas,” but to restrict or prohibit other human activities including coastal development and water pollution.
“Coastal development, water pollution, and other human activities threaten the health of marine habitat and the biological diversity found in California’s ocean waters,” the law states in Fish and Game Code Section 2851, section c.
The law also broadly defines a “marine protected area” (MPA) as “a named, discrete geographic marine or estuarine area seaward of the mean high tide line or the mouth of a coastal river, including any area of inertial or sub tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora and fauna that has been designated by law, administrative action, or voter initiative to protect or conserve marine life and habitat” (Fish and Game Code 2852, section c).
Furthermore, the law also defines a “Marine life reserve,” as “a marine protected area in which all extractive activities, including the taking of marine species, and, at the discretion of the commission and within the authority of the commission, other activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area, are prohibited. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state” (Fish and Game Code 2852, section d).
However, the implementation of the law has become a parody of real marine protection. The MLPA process has taken oil drilling, water pollution, wave energy development, habitat destruction and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table. The MLPA would do nothing to stop another Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon oil disaster from devastating the California coast.
Here are the questions:
Why did Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 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 by creating so-called “marine protected areas” (MPAS)? Isn’t this very bad public policy?
Why was 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 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 little or no respect for tribal subsistence and ceremonial rights? In fact, it was only because of massive opposition by North Coast Tribes and their allies that an amendment that would have terminated tribal fishing and gathering rights failed to pass during a special MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force teleconference meeting held in Fort Bragg, Crescent City and Eureka on December 9.
Since the MLPA was privatized in 2004, the initiative has violated 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).
The MLPA also violates Article 26, Section 3, that declares, “States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.”
The unified proposal adopted by North Coast MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force is the first MLPA proposal that acknowledges tribal gathering and fishing rights, a tribute to the hard work of the Tribal, fishing and environmental stakeholders? However, why did it take 6 years for this to happen?
Why were 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? Isn’t this a case of institutional racism on behalf of MLPA officials?
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 Hilborn, 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 did the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force hold illegal secret meetings, including those held in April 2007 and on November 3, 2008, December 10, 2008, February 25, 2009, October 20, 21 and 22, 2009? Why did it take a lawsuit to get the emails and correspondence by MLPA officials documenting these private, non-public meetings disclosed to the public?
Finally, why did 300 Tribal members, fishermen, immigrant workers and environmentalists 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 in Fort Bragg of July 21 so their voices would be finally heard?
Proponents of the MLPA Initiative have failed to address the many criticisms of the MLPA process by Indian Tribes, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, conservationists and environmental justice advocates.
Real environmentalists support true, comprehensive ocean protection as the MLPA originally intended, not the facade of protection that Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative provides.
Real environmentalists don’t support a process that has gone to great lengths to take oil drilling, water pollution, wave energy development, habitat destruction, military testing and other human uses of the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table in its perverse concept of marine “protection.”
Finally, real environmentalists oppose the privatization of ocean conservation that has occurred under the MLPA Initiative.
The MLPA process must be seen in the context of the campaign by the Schwarzenegger administration, corporate media, some NGOs and political hacks to greenwash the environmental legacy of the worst Governor in California history for fish, water and the environment. This is the same Governor who presided over the unprecedented collapse of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other fish species, relentlessly campaigned for the construction of an environmentally destructive and enormously expensive peripheral canal and new dams and vetoed numerous laws protecting fish, water and the environment.
Anonymous Truth squat
There is no science! Just models, with no baseline, no accurate data at the nearshore to the 'proxy line', and the Levels of Protection particularly on the harvest of seaweeds were based on science that was neither peer reviewed nor published. But then the peer review of the Master Plan Framework was laughable at best, and contested by former SAT members who themselves are well respected around the world have since continued to challenge the SAT conclusions. All along the RSG and the general public have been given one useless piece of information at a time right up to the to the last minute.
Melissa Miller-Henson stated at the 02022011 F&G Commission hearing that there were 1900 participants on the North Coast in the MLPA. Between Point Arena and (mostly) Shelter Cove, 1200 signatures in support of Option ZERO were submitted to Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro and the F&G Commission.
It is important to honor the effort of the RSG and the 'One Unified Proposal'. Though the Revised North Coast Proposal (RNCP) is not the same one the RSG agreed to among themselves in August 2010. For instance the Ten Mile Cluster MPA is much larger. Many Wild Ocean Food Gatherers from Point Arena to Shelter Cove and north support Option ZERO.
Which truth of the matter would you have sir? There are so many of them!
Tomas DiFiore
AHRA
Learn about OPTION ZERO on the North Coast, visit:
http://www.albionharbor.org/optionzero.html
There is no science! Just models, with no baseline, no accurate data at the nearshore to the 'proxy line', and the Levels of Protection particularly on the harvest of seaweeds were based on science that was neither peer reviewed nor published. But then the peer review of the Master Plan Framework was laughable at best, and contested by former SAT members who themselves are well respected around the world have since continued to challenge the SAT conclusions. All along the RSG and the general public have been given one useless piece of information at a time right up to the to the last minute.
Melissa Miller-Henson stated at the 02022011 F&G Commission hearing that there were 1900 participants on the North Coast in the MLPA. Between Point Arena and (mostly) Shelter Cove, 1200 signatures in support of Option ZERO were submitted to Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro and the F&G Commission.
It is important to honor the effort of the RSG and the 'One Unified Proposal'. Though the Revised North Coast Proposal (RNCP) is not the same one the RSG agreed to among themselves in August 2010. For instance the Ten Mile Cluster MPA is much larger. Many Wild Ocean Food Gatherers from Point Arena to Shelter Cove and north support Option ZERO.
Which truth of the matter would you have sir? There are so many of them!
Tomas DiFiore
AHRA
Learn about OPTION ZERO on the North Coast, visit:
http://www.albionharbor.org/optionzero.html
For more information:
http://www.albionharbor.org
http://scholar.google.com
While many scientific articles are kept away from the public by publishing companies such as Springer or Blackwell, you can get access to abstracts, as well as the full text of reports published with government funding by NOAA or USGS, and certain medical institutions like NIH. Some journals such as PLoS make the text of everything available.
Search for 'marine reserve' or 'marine protected area' + California to read about what type of data and research has been accomplished in this area.
While many scientific articles are kept away from the public by publishing companies such as Springer or Blackwell, you can get access to abstracts, as well as the full text of reports published with government funding by NOAA or USGS, and certain medical institutions like NIH. Some journals such as PLoS make the text of everything available.
Search for 'marine reserve' or 'marine protected area' + California to read about what type of data and research has been accomplished in this area.
To see the entire 25-page set of BRTF private meeting documents, go to the San Diego Freedivers website: http://www.sandiegofreedivers.com/MLPABRTFofflinemeetingdocumentation.pdf
Finding science articles and delving into the deep web are not the problem. For someone like myself that is the easiest part.
But what of the 'best readily available science'? when the science used to support closures on the North Coast is listed in the MLPA North Coast "Science Advisory team" meeting documents, and again and again at subsequent Blue Ribbon Task Force and Regional Stakeholder Group meetings as "in preparation, or has been submitted" and when there is published and peer reviewed science on the same species, from California and Washington in near diametric opposition by virtue of the framework of intent, goals, and outcomes, it seems there are more than just conflicting viewpoints. The in-house peer review of the "Master Plan Framework" set the standard:
1)Statement of Reasons: May 14, 2007: “It is important to understand that the charge of the peer review entity is not to authenticate the data presented to them, but to evaluate the scientific methodology employed and the facial plausibility of the conclusions that can be drawn therefrom. More importantly, the peer review entity is not expected to approve, disapprove, or comment on the wisdom of those conclusions. This must be so, because reasonable people can in good faith arrive at different conclusions using the same data and methodology.”
“In that regard, the Department undertook such a peer review of the scientific basis for the Master Plan.”
“That the Legislature, as a matter of public policy, has favored timeliness over quality of information does not mean that inadequate science should be used. In that respect, external peer review is a strong guarantor of the adequacy of the science. The MLPA mandates that an external peer review process be established, and allows use of the process identified in Section 7062 of the MLMA “to the extent practicable” [Section 2858]. Subsection 7062(a) allows for submission to peer review of documents “that include, but are not limited to [marine living resources management documents].”
However, such submissions are discretionary.
At the February 2, 2011 Fish and Game commission meeting,just as 11 days earlier -
*Throughout testimony at the 01212011 Subcommittee meeting testimony was given as to the lack of MLPAi science and access to input mechanisms for raw data from Local Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Tribal Knowledge. Yurok Tribe Senior Fisheries Biologist Michael Belchik said it most succinctly: Listen 2MB 9mins
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/foundationalprinciples.mp3
But what of the 'best readily available science'? when the science used to support closures on the North Coast is listed in the MLPA North Coast "Science Advisory team" meeting documents, and again and again at subsequent Blue Ribbon Task Force and Regional Stakeholder Group meetings as "in preparation, or has been submitted" and when there is published and peer reviewed science on the same species, from California and Washington in near diametric opposition by virtue of the framework of intent, goals, and outcomes, it seems there are more than just conflicting viewpoints. The in-house peer review of the "Master Plan Framework" set the standard:
1)Statement of Reasons: May 14, 2007: “It is important to understand that the charge of the peer review entity is not to authenticate the data presented to them, but to evaluate the scientific methodology employed and the facial plausibility of the conclusions that can be drawn therefrom. More importantly, the peer review entity is not expected to approve, disapprove, or comment on the wisdom of those conclusions. This must be so, because reasonable people can in good faith arrive at different conclusions using the same data and methodology.”
“In that regard, the Department undertook such a peer review of the scientific basis for the Master Plan.”
“That the Legislature, as a matter of public policy, has favored timeliness over quality of information does not mean that inadequate science should be used. In that respect, external peer review is a strong guarantor of the adequacy of the science. The MLPA mandates that an external peer review process be established, and allows use of the process identified in Section 7062 of the MLMA “to the extent practicable” [Section 2858]. Subsection 7062(a) allows for submission to peer review of documents “that include, but are not limited to [marine living resources management documents].”
However, such submissions are discretionary.
At the February 2, 2011 Fish and Game commission meeting,just as 11 days earlier -
*Throughout testimony at the 01212011 Subcommittee meeting testimony was given as to the lack of MLPAi science and access to input mechanisms for raw data from Local Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Tribal Knowledge. Yurok Tribe Senior Fisheries Biologist Michael Belchik said it most succinctly: Listen 2MB 9mins
http://www.albionharbor.org/audiotakes/foundationalprinciples.mp3
For more information:
http://www.albionharbor.org
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$65.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network