The application of the Marine Life Protection Act to the coastline of California came one step closer to completion as the proposals for the area from Pt. Conception to the Mexican border were forwarded to the Fish and Game Commission for approval on December 9th. Over the next several months the merits of the proposals will be debated and final evaluations will be determined before the end of 2010. This third of four phases will be complete when late this year. The final work on the North Coast portion is just starting.
More than ever before, balancing the conservation goals against the socioeconomic costs of advancing protections has spawned significant controversy. As before, the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) took the three products of the conservation, fishing and cross interest work groups and rather than choose a recommendation from the user product, the BRTF chose to take portions from each and make sausage which it called the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA). In almost every case, the IPA created by the BRTF opted to protect the least amount of biomass with its choices. This seems incredibly inconsistent with a science-driven process, and with the goal of protected areas to be productive and create spillover into adjacent waters. As a conservation advocate, I am disappointed in the IPA. It is little wonder that it scored as poorly in the staff evaluations and failed to meet the science standards it insisted we apply in the working groups. I think it falls short of the Legislative mandate and is not what our children or grandchildren deserve. There are two other options that meet science guidelines.