New Fish and Game Commission member to vote on marine protection
On the eve of a key vote on protections for fish, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed a new member of the Fish and Game Commission, the five-member state board charged with mapping out protected areas under the 1998 Marine Life Protection Act. The government's decision to appoint Donald Benninghoven on Tuesday afternoon followed the resignation of the commission's president, Cindy Gustafson, on Friday morning.
Gustafson resigned after receiving notice from the state attorney general that her new position as general manager of the Tahoe City Public Utilities District, a local water authority, constituted a conflict of interest.
Environmental groups had voiced their support for Benninghoven's appointment, worrying that Gustafson's resignation would result in a 2-2 tie over proposed marine protections from San Mateo to Point Arena.
"Given the gravity of the votes this week, the governor's office acted quickly and was responsive," said Adrianna Shea, deputy executive director for the Fish and Game Commission.
Benninghoven served from 2007 to 2009 on the state's Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Marine Life Protection Act. On Wednesday, he will sit on the commission as it reviews the task force's recommendations on the location and strength of protections in marine areas.
The plan to establish a network of protected marine areas has been the subject of contentious debate among fishermen, conservationists and other interested parties. Conservationists say protecting certain areas is the only way to rejuvenate declining fish populations, while recreationists want to fish and boat where they please. Marine reserves have already been established in other parts of the state.
Shea said Benninghoven is "very well-versed" on marine protected areas and the Marine Life Protection Act. On other upcoming issues, she said, the commission will be "getting him caught up as quickly as we can."
--Amy Littlefield
The comment that "recreationists want to fish and boat where they please" seems to reflect a journalistic bias, which has no place in the writing of informative articles. The truth is that they are not asking to fish and boat where they please, but are only trying to show support for a plan that allows for public use and access AND responsible ocean conservation. That would be Alternative 2XA.
Posted by: Lisa | August 05, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Great, environmental special interest politics is really stacking the deck against us fishermen. The whole process is being funded by environmental groups including the packard foundation and the monterey bay aquarium. What people fail to understand is that California's fisheries are very well managed, not heavily overfished like these people want you to believe and contribute a great amount to our local economy.
Anybody else see the latest article from Science Magazine?
This is from the same guy that said all fisheries will be devastated by 2048
A new landmark study published in the July 31 issue of Science magazine reveals that the California Current ecosystem has the lowest fishery exploitation rate of any place in the world examined by co-authors Ray Hilborn and Boris Worm and 19 other scientists.
Landmark Study Counters Pseudo Science Behind MLPA Process
California has the lowest exploitation rate of fished stocks in the world
By Dan Bacher
A new groundbreaking study published in the July 31 issue of Science magazine reveals that the California Current ecosystem has the lowest fishery exploitation rate of any place in the world examined by co-authors Ray Hilborn and Boris Worm and 19 other scientists.
The people need the facts, all this is a bunch of politics as usual at a time when California doesnt have the funds to pay for it
Posted by: commercial sea urchin diver | August 05, 2009 at 05:10 PM
It was fascinating to see the foreign fishing-industry backed Astroturf campaign at work today at the hearing, complete with their T-shirts touting 2-XA. They attacked the commissioners personally, questioned their ethics, and fabricated information about enforcement and cost. So much for civil debate. The truth is here: www.somethingsfishyaboutpso.com
Posted by: Steven Maviglio | August 05, 2009 at 05:05 PM
Can't you folks even try to get it right? You state that "recreationists want to fish and boat where they please" while the truth is both recreational and commercial anglers helped craft most of the preferred alternative on the table. They object to a portion of that package backed by environmentalists that would both endanger small boaters and put undue pressure on abalone stocks. It's important to note the entire 2-XA fisherman's proposal puts 11 percent of the North Central Coast in no-take reserves -- which hardly fits under the idea of fishing and boating wherever they please.
Posted by: Rich Holland | August 05, 2009 at 12:46 PM
The proposed marine protections are reasonable and necessary. I hope that the Fish and Game Commission will adopt them. Many marine species are declining, and studies have generally shown that marine protected areas actually improve fishing over time in adjacent waters. Those who oppose these protections are working against their own long-term self-interest, and also the public interest in restoring healthy populations of marine species.
Posted by: Rick | August 05, 2009 at 07:56 AM
Where is the Gold Line Extension for East LA?
Posted by: Ted | August 05, 2009 at 07:33 AM