Posted by Eric Frasco on July 31, 2001 at 08:55:44:
In Reply to: Re: Oh please youself posted by msblucow on July 30, 2001 at 08:56:27:
Jade Cove:
DFG set itside for protection. The Conference of California Councils (of which GLACD is a member) reviewed the process, but did not catch the wording that set "mineral resources" as protected. No one thought that DFG would bother to enforce "no-take" of small pieces of jade from Jade Cove, but they did. Folks removing small pieces of the naturally occurring jade at that site were suddenly guilty of violating DFG regulations - imagine getting cited for "poaching" rocks! It took several years to get that clause reversed, and now you can take what you can carry out manually. But removal of large pieces of jade is still illegal, and what "large" is remains subject to interpretation by DFG.
The bottom line is that DFG can decide to be very aggressive in interpreting and enforcing the charter for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. For example, the stretch along Palos Verdes from Flat Rock to Point Vicente has a charter to "protect the intertidal ecosystem." If DFG decides that divers disturb the intertidal area by stepping on marine organisms during entry and exit, then diving will become illegal and there will be NO DIVING. Then it will take years of lobbying to get our right to access the area restored (if ever).
It's that simple. DFG can shut down access without any oversight by the public, once the charter has been written and enacted.
Many folks are insisting that there be a "sunset clause" to the MPA's - if DFG cannot prove that the MPAs are providing the benefits that they claim, then the protected status should be removed and access to the areas that were closed should be restored.
-Eric-