Work Through Collaboration

By working together, we plan to bring our experience, expertise and energy to bear on issues of the MLPA that we feel we can positively affect.

We believe that MLPA, if properly implemented, can be an effective tool in addressing challenges affecting the ocean environment. Closures, if properly done and based on sound science, can be effective in restoring habitats and improve species biomass.

However, it is our belief that the MLPA’s original goals have been compromised by the current implementers of the South Coast Region, by California’s fiscal problems, and by the undue influence of private interest money. We see a lack of accountability to the public, with the MLPA’s current administration heavily weighted toward the “preservationist” point of view and their anti-fishing interests.

As proposed by the current implementers, the process fails to address the real culprits of habitat destruction­poor water quality, climate change, on-shore and off-shore pollution. Where closures are proposed, fishermen and spearos are singled out without any meaningful justification for the discrimination. For example, marine reserves shut out fishermen and spearos but do not attempt, even superficially, to take into account other habitat-impacting activities such as anchoring, boating and Jet Skiing. Even seemingly benign sports such scuba diving can impact the ocean floor and surfing can bring toxic chemicals into the ocean and disturb birds and marine mammals as well as trampling of the delicate intertidal zone. While preserving reasonable access for all ocean lovers is our goal, the above examples serve to illustrate the discriminatory practices of current MLPA implementers.

Furthermore, we feel that the current MLPA process is proceeding too hastily with flawed and incomplete science. More alarmingly, much of the scientific control lies within the preservation camp, with scientists acting on an agenda and influenced by the prospects of future employment and grants from the preservationist camp. For example, there are significant concerns as to the characterization of the near-shore habitat and the “size and spacing” guidelines promulgated by the Scientific Advisory Team, the SAT. Unbiased science would demand that these concerns be addressed in an objective, fact-based manner. Unfortunately, the response of the current SAT team has been to bow to the demands of the preservationist’s camp.

The speed with which the MLPA process is moving forward is wholly unjustified given the potential devastation to coast-side communities and the loss of recreational opportunities for millions of Californians. It is not enough to constantly justify the flawed implementation by repeating “best available science” much of which is sketchy, full of data gaps, and is in constant flux.

Given the undue influence by private interest money, lack of accountability, and flawed and/or biased science, we believe there is a bias toward the creation of much larger preserves than are necessary.