An editorial by Terry Pederson, Dave Pfeiffer and Bill Shedd
As businessmen and California residents, the state’s mounting fiscal crisis impacts both our professional and personal lives. This is especially true in Long Beach, one of the state’s most loved coastal areas. Our companies manufacture sportfishing equipment which is purchased and used by millions of California residents and out of state anglers – supporting local communities with sales taxes, travel, food and lodging expenditures – in addition to the tens of thousands of people employed by our industry. Sportfishing’s economic benefit should not be dismissed given the state’s multi-billion dollar budget crisis.
Saltwater recreational fishing contributes over $2.2 billion annually to the state’s economy, directly supporting over 20,000 jobs which are often at the heart of many coastal communities. We realize that the welfare of our business depends on California having healthy and abundant fishery resources for people to enjoy. However, if Californians don’t have access to those fisheries, our business and the businesses of many other Californians will be jeopardized.
The issue at hand surrounds the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) a complex and ambitious environmental initiative passed into law by the state legislature in 1999 and now in the process of implementation by California’s Fish and Game Commission. The purpose of the Act, in its own words, is to establish “networks of marine protected areas in California waters to protect habitats and preserve ecosystem integrity,” among other things.
We are closely following the MLPA implementation process, which could restrict or close a significant area of California’s coastal waters in the Long Beach area to public access, which primarily means recreational fishing. Long Beach is filled with coastal gems, such as Horseshoe Kelp – the closest offshore area from both Long Beach and San Pedro harbors – which could be at risk for closing. While we support the state’s intentions to protect essential habitat and maintain healthy fish populations, we question the wisdom of continuing to use a process of which the end result is in the loss of jobs in both the public and private sectors during this time of extreme economic hardship. Can our state afford that? We think not. Why risk the economic future of this industry when the benefits can’t be scientifically quantified?
California Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman stated that he intends to complete the MLPA implementation process, regardless of the current fiscal crisis, ignoring the fact that key components can not be implemented because the state does not have the money. Chrisman further said he realizes “certain segments of the industry will be hurt,” and that “…certain ports may be impacted. Our hope is that the impacts are short term.” How can the Secretary be so cavalier about the specter of putting our companies and many like us out of business? Mr. Secretary, please explain the reasoning behind your decision to keep moving forward with the implementation process given the current fiscal crisis.
When the MLPA implementation process ran short of dollars in 2004, Secretary Chrisman saw the wisdom of not launching the process without the appropriate funding to do the job correctly. “This is not about supporting the program,” said Chrisman. “It is about simply not having enough staff or money to do the job right.” Incredibly that was a time when the MLPA implementation had a shortfall of a relatively modest $2 million.
Now the state says it needs $30 to $40 million annually to implement essential scientific monitoring and enforcement aspects of the MLPA which only the state can implement. For example, wardens under California law must be certified to enforce the law and cannot be volunteers or otherwise trained. While a public-private partnership continues to fund the planning stage in Southern California, this is not an option for the full implementation of the Central Coast and North Central Coast phases. From where is that money supposed to come when the just-signed budget cuts at least another 10% from the budget of the Department of Fish & Game?
Mr. Secretary, we support maintaining the health of our ocean fisheries. We urge you and the Governor to realistically assess the MLPA implementation process – given the possibility the state may not be able to fund required scientific monitoring and enforcement – and the potential damage to California’s sportfishing industry and the state’s economy. Let’s get this right; we may not have another chance.
Terry Pederson, Vice President for Sales, Daiwa Corp, can be reached at [email protected]; Dave Pfeiffer, President, Shimano American Corporation, can be reached at [email protected]; and Bill Shedd, President, AFTCO Bluewater, can be reached at [email protected].