Go back to previous topic | Forum name | Calfishing.com Main Board | Topic subject | Prop 40 threat to anglers | Topic URL | http://www.calfishing.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=1213 |
1213, Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Mon Feb-25-02 01:41 PM
Read Rich Holland's column in the 2/22/02 issue of WON. It convinced me that Prop 40 could pose a threat to fishing. Ordinarily I vote for clean-water propositions.
Bob
|
1214, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Tue Feb-26-02 11:16 AM
Can you be more specific as to how Prop 40 could affect fisheries, I was going to vote yes as well, but if there are any issues pertinent to fishing I sure would like to know. I don't usually buy WON so I would like to hear the dope
Thanks
Tight Lines..................
|
1215, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Tue Feb-26-02 01:44 PM
A few weeks ago someone else posted a warning about Prop 40 at this site, so I read the proposition at that time and became somewhat suspicious of Prop 40. (I will read all propositions again before election day.) I don't recall the details that made me suspicious, but here are some of the WON columnist's points, as I recall them.
1. Much of the money will go to private groups that may be among those most inclined toward closures and excessive angling restrictions.
2. There is money to offset "environmental threats", which, these days, may be construed by some to include fishing.
After all that anglers have had to cope with politically recently maybe I and the columnist are too suspicious, and there is always another point of view. I respect any angler's opinion on Prop 40 and urge all to read it. (As an unregistered calicrat I am not very political.)
|
1216, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Wed Feb-27-02 11:48 AM
Thanks for the extra information, I guess it would behoove me to read prop 40 a little more carefully. Keeping an eye out for any suspicious goings on.... I honestly don't think I'd be able to find any if I tried, I'm a fisherman not a politician...
Well anyhow
Tight Lines...............
|
1217, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Wed Feb-27-02 12:39 PM
I posted the first reference to prop 40 a couple weeks ago. Nobody listened!! watch the ad on t.v. as they tell you"WE MUST PROTECT OUR DRINKING WATER FROM THE SOURCE". Guess what,guys? that source is every lake,stream ,river and reservoirin the entire state. And they want to "protect" that water all the way to the consumer. Translation:NO FISHING,camping,hunting,hiking,bird watching or anything else that might be construed by the environazis as a possible voilation of "the clean water act". It will,in allprobablity,have severe penaltys attached to the bill in case anyone violates this law. NO!NO!NO! A million times,never will i vote yes on this bill! i'm mad as hell about this dbajimbo@aol.com I invite your comments.
|
1218, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Wed Feb-27-02 12:43 PM
1 more thing! go to "california ballot measures.com"and read prop 40 for yourself! What a bunch of crap dbajimbo
|
1219, Full Text of Prop 40 Posted by swimbait, Wed Feb-27-02 01:08 PM
5096.600. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. 5096.601. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) To maintain a high quality of life for California's growing population requires a continuing investment in parks, recreation facilities, and in the protection of the state's natural and historical resources. (b) Clean air, clean water, clean beaches, and healthy natural ecosystems that can support both human communities and the state's native fish and wildlife are all part of the legacy of California. Each generation has an obligation to be good stewards of these resources in order to pass them on to their children. (c) California's historical legacy also requires active protection, restoration, and interpretation to preserve and pass on an understanding and appreciation of the diverse cultural influences and extraordinary human achievements that have contributed to the unique development of California. 5096.605. As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Acquisition" means obtaining the fee title or a lesser interest in real property, including specifically, a conservation easement or development rights. (b) "Department" means the Department of Parks and Recreation. (c) "Development" includes, but is not limited to, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration, enhancement, preservation, protection, and interpretation. (d) "Director" means the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. (e) "District" means any regional park district, regional park and open-space district, or regional open-space district formed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3, any recreation and park district formed pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 5780), or an authority formed pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with Section 35100). With respect to any community or unincorporated region that is not included within a district, and in which no city or county provides parks or recreational areas or facilities, "district" also means any other district that is authorized by statute to operate and manage parks or recreational areas or facilities, employs a full-time park and recreation director, offers year-round park and recreation services on lands and facilities owned by the district, and allocates a substantial portion of its annual operating budget to parks or recreation areas or facilities. (f) "Fund" means the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Fund created pursuant to Section 5096.610. (g) "Historical resource" includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, site, area, place, artifact, or collection of artifacts that is historically or archaeologically significant in the cultural annals of California. (h) "Local conservation corps" means a program operated by a public agency or nonprofit organization that is certified pursuant to Section 14406. (i) "Nonprofit organization" means any nonprofit public benefit corporation formed pursuant to the Nonprofit Corporation Law (commencing with Section 5000 of the Corporations Code), qualified to do business in California, and qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. (j) "Preservation" means identification, evaluation, recordation, documentation, interpretation, protection, rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, development, and reconstruction, or any combination of those activities. (k) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Resources Agency. 5096.606. Lands or interests in land acquired with funds allocated pursuant to this chapter shall be acquired from a willing seller.
Article 2. The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002
5096.610. The proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Fund, which is hereby created. Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 5096.650, the money in the fund shall be available for appropriation by the Legislature, in the manner set forth in this chapter, for acquisition and development projects, in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) The sum of two hundred twenty-five million dollars ($225,000,000) for acquisition and development of the state park system. (b) The sum of eight hundred thirty-two million five hundred thousand dollars ($832,500,000) for local assistance programs for the acquisition and development of neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation areas. (c) The sum of one billion two hundred seventy-five million dollars ($1,275,000,000) for land, air, and water conservation programs, including acquisition for those purposes. (d) The sum of two hundred sixty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($267,500,000) for the acquisition, restoration, preservation, and interpretation of California's historical and cultural resources.
Article 3. State Parks
5096.615. The two hundred twenty-five million dollars ($225,000,000) allocated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.610 shall be available for appropriation by the Legislature to the department for the acquisition and development of the state park system. It is the intent of the Legislature that first priority for funding shall be for development projects to complete and expand visitor facilities and for restoration projects. Not more than 50 percent of the funds provided by this section may be used for acquisition.
Article 4. Local Assistance Programs
5096.620. The eight hundred thirty-two million five hundred thousand dollars ($832,500,000) allocated pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5096.610 shall be available for appropriation by the Legislature for local assistance programs, in accordance with the following schedule: (a) The sum of three hundred fifty million dollars ($350,000,000) to the department for grants, in accordance with Section 5096.621, and on the basis of population, for the acquisition and development of neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation lands and facilities in urban and rural areas. (b) The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) to the department for grants, in accordance with the Roberti-Z'berg-Harris Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program Act (Chapter 3.2 (commencing with Section 5620)). (c) The sum of twenty-two million five hundred thousand dollars ($22,500,000) on a per capita basis in accordance with subdivision (g) of Section 5096.621. (d) The sum of two hundred sixty million dollars ($260,000,000) to the department for grants for urban and special need park programs in accordance with Section 5096.625. 5096.621. (a) Sixty percent of the total funds available for grants pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.620 shall be allocated to cities and to districts other than a regional park district, regional park and open-space district, or regional open-space district. Each city's and district's allocation shall be in the same ratio as the city's or district's population is to the combined total of the state's population that is included in incorporated areas and unincorporated areas within the district, except that each city or district shall be entitled to a minimum allocation of two hundred twenty thousand dollars ($220,000). In any instance in which the boundary of a city overlaps the boundary of such a district, the population in the area of overlapping jurisdiction shall be attributed to each jurisdiction in proportion to the extent to which each operate and manage parks and recreational areas and facilities for that population. In any instance in which the boundary of a city overlaps the boundary of such a district, and in the area of overlap the city does not operate and manage parks and recreational areas and facilities, all grant funds shall be allocated to the district. (b) Each city and each district subject to subdivision (a) whose boundaries overlap shall develop a specific plan for allocating the grant funds in accordance with the formula specified in subdivision (a). If, by April 1, 2003, the plan has not been agreed to by the city and district and submitted to the department, the director shall determine the allocation of the grant funds among the affected jurisdictions. (c) Forty percent of the total funds available for grants pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.620 shall be allocated to counties and regional park districts, regional park and open-space districts, or regional open-space districts formed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3. (d) Each county's allocation under subdivision (a) shall be in the same ratio as the county's population, except that each county shall be entitled to a minimum allocation of one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000). (e) In any county that embraces all or part of the territory of a regional park district, regional park and open-space district, or regional open-space district, whose board of directors is not the county board of supervisors, the amount allocated to the county shall be apportioned between that district and the county in proportion to the population of the county that is included within the territory of the district and the population of the county that is outside the territory of the district. (f) For the purpose of making the calculations required by this section, population shall be determined by the department, in cooperation with the Department of Finance, on the basis of the most recent verifiable census data and other verifiable population data that the department may require to be furnished by the applicant city, county, or district. (g) Of the funds appropriated in subdivision (c) of Section 5096.620, twelve million five hundred thousand dollars ($12,500,000) shall be allocated to a city with an urban population greater than three million five hundred thousand in a county of the first class, and ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be allocated to a county of the first class. (h) The Legislature finds and declares that it intends all recipients of funds pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.620 to use those funds to supplement local revenues, in existence on the effective date of the act adding this chapter during the 2001-02 Regular Session, that are being used for parks or other projects eligible for funds under this chapter. To receive any allocation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.620, the recipient may not reduce the amount of funding otherwise available to be spent on parks or other projects eligible for funds under this chapter in their jurisdiction. One-time allocations that have been expended for parks or other projects, but which are not available on an ongoing basis, may not be considered when calculating a recipient's annual expenditures. For purposes of this subdivision, the Controller may request fiscal data from recipients for the preceding three fiscal years. Each recipient shall furnish the data to the Controller not later than 120 days after receiving the request from the Controller.
5096.624. (a) The director shall prepare and adopt criteria and procedures for evaluating applications for grants allocated pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, of Section 5096.620. Individual applications for funds shall be submitted to the department for approval as to their conformity with the requirements of this chapter. The application shall be accompanied by certification that the project for which the grant is requested is consistent with the park and recreation element of the applicable city or county general plan or the district park and recreation plan, as the case may be, and will satisfy a high priority need. (b) To utilize available grant funds as effectively as possible, overlapping or adjoining jurisdictions and applicants with similar objectives are encouraged to combine projects and submit a joint application. An applicant may allocate all or a portion of its per capita share for a regional or state project. (c) The director shall annually forward a statement of the total amount to be appropriated in each fiscal year for projects approved for grants pursuant to this article to the Director of Finance for inclusion in the Budget Bill. A list of eligible jurisdictions and the amount of grant funds to be allocated to each shall also be made available by the department. (d) Funds appropriated pursuant to this article shall be encumbered by the recipient within three years from the date the appropriation is effective. Regardless of the date of encumbrance of the granted funds, the recipient is expected to complete all funded projects within eight years of the effective date of the appropriation. 5096.625. The funds provided in subdivision (d) of Section 5096.620 shall be available as grants for public agencies and nonprofit organizations for the acquisition and development of new parks, botanical gardens, nature centers, and other community facilities in park poor communities. The funds may be expended pursuant to Section 5004.5, and Chapter 1.55 (commencing with Section 5095), if Senate Bill 359 of the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature is enacted on or before January 1, 2003, and Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 5640), if Assembly Bill 1481 of the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature is enacted on or before January 1, 2003, or pursuant to any other applicable statutory authorization. Not less than fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) of the funds provided in subdivision (d) of Section 5096.620 shall be expended for competitive grants consistent with the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 5096.348. Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) of the funds provided in subdivision (d) of Section 5096.620 shall be available for development of Central Park in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Five million dollars ($5,000,000) of the funds provided in subdivision (d) of Section 5096.620 shall be available for allocation to the City of Los Angeles for park and recreation or community facilities at or adjacent to the Hansen Dam recreation area. Five million dollars ($5,000,000) of the funds provided in subdivision (d) of Section 5096.620 shall be available for allocation to the City of Los Angeles for the Sepulveda Basin recreational parkland. 5096.629. In making grants of funds allocated pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 5096.620, priority shall be assigned to projects that include a commitment for a matching contribution. Contributions may be in the form of money from a nonstate source; gifts of real property, equipment, and consumable supplies; volunteer services; free or reduced-cost use. 5096.633. Any grant funds appropriated pursuant to this article that have not been expended by the grant recipient prior to July 1, 2011, shall revert to the fund and be available for appropriation by the Legislature for one or more of the local assistance programs specified in Section 5096.620 that the Legislature determines to be the highest priority statewide.
Article 5. Land, Air, and Water Conservation
5096.650. The one billion two hundred seventy-five million dollars ($1,275,000,000) allocated pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 5096.610 shall be available for the acquisition and development of land, air, and water resources in accordance with the following schedule: (a) Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, the sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is continuously appropriated to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, restoration, and protection of habitat that promotes the recovery of threatened and endangered species, that provides corridors linking separate habitat areas to prevent habitat fragmentation, and that protects significant natural landscapes and ecosystems such as old growth redwoods and oak woodlands and other significant habitat areas; and for grants and related state administrative costs pursuant to the Wildlife Conservation Law of 1947 (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1300) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). Funds scheduled in this subdivision may be used to prepare management plans for properties acquired in fee by the Wildlife Conservation Board. (b) The sum of four hundred forty-five million dollars ($445,000,000) to the conservancies in accordance with the particular provisions of the statute creating each conservancy for the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, restoration, and protection of land and water resources; for grants and state administrative costs; and in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) To the State Coastal Conservancy $200,000,000 (2) To the California Tahoe Conservanc $ 40,000,000 (3) To the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy $ 40,000,000 (4) To the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy $ 20,000,000 (5) To the San Joaquin River Conservancy $ 25,000,000 (6) To the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy $ 40,000,000 (7) To the Baldwin Hills Conservancy $ 40,000,000 (8) To the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program $ 40,000,000
(c) The sum of three hundred seventy-five million dollars ($375,000,000) shall be available for grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for acquisition, development, restoration, and associated planning, permitting, and administrative costs for the protection and restoration of water resources in accordance with the following schedule: (1) The sum of seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) to the secretary for the acquisition and development of river parkways and for protecting urban streams. The secretary shall make funds available in accordance with Sections 7048 and 78682.2 of the Water Code, and pursuant to any other applicable statutory authorization. Not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) shall be available for grants for the urban streams program, pursuant to Section 7048 of the Water Code. (2) The sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) shall be available for the purposes of clean beaches, watershed protection, and water quality projects to protect beaches, coastal waters, rivers, lakes, and streams from contaminants, pollution, and other environmental threats. (d) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) to the State Air Resources Board for grants to air districts pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 44275) of Part 5 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code for projects that reduce air pollution that affects air quality in state and local park and recreation areas. Eligible projects shall meet the requirements of Section 16727 of the Government Code and shall be consistent with Section 43023.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if Assembly Bill 1390 of the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature ienacted on or before January 1, 2003. Each district shall be eligible for grants of not less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000). Not more than 5 percent of the funds allocated to a district may be used to cover the costs associated with implementing the grant program. (e) The sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the California Conservation Corps for the acquisition, development, restoration, and rehabilitation of land and water resources, and for grants and state administrative costs in accordance with the following schedule: (1) The sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) shall be available for resource conservation activities. (2) The sum of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) shall be available for grants to local conservation corps for acquisition and development of facilities to support local conservation corps programs. (f) The sum of seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) shall be available for grants for the preservation of agricultural lands and grazing lands, including oak woodlands and grasslands. (g) The sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for grants for urban forestry programs pursuant to the California Urban Forestry Act of 1978 (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 4799.06) of Part 2.5 of Division 1). 5096.651. In making grants pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 5096.650, priority shall be given to projects that include a commitment for a matching contribution. Contributions may be in the form of money, property, or services.
Article 5. Historical and Cultural Resources Preservation
5096.652. (a) The two hundred sixty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($267,500,000) allocated pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 5096.610 shall be available for appropriation by the Legislature for the acquisition, development, preservation, and interpretation of buildings, structures, sites, places, and artifacts that preserve and demonstrate culturally significant aspects of California's history and for grants for these purposes. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, those which preserve and demonstrate the following: (1) Culturally significant aspects of life during various periods of California history including architecture, economic activities, art, recreation, and transportation. (2) Unique identifiable ethnic and other communities that have added significant elements to California's culture. (3) California industrial, commercial, and military history including the industries, technologies, and commercial activities that have characterized California's economic expansion and California's contribution to national defense. (4) Important paleontologic, oceanographic, and geologic sites and specimens. (b) Thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) of the funds available pursuant to this section shall be allocated to a city for the development, rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, and interpretation of resources at a city park of historical and cultural significance that is over 1,000 acres and that serves an urban area with a population that is greater than 750,000 in northern California. (c) Two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) of the funds available pursuant to this section shall be allocated to the County of Los Angeles for the El Pueblo Cultural and Performing Arts Center.
Article 6. Fiscal Provisions
5096.665. Bonds in the total amount of two billion six hundred million dollars ($2,600,000,000), not including the amount of any refunding bonds issued in accordance with Section 5096.677, or so much thereof as is necessary, may be issued and sold to provide a fund to be used for carrying out the purposes set forth in Section 5096.610 and to be used to reimburse the General Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund pursuant to Section 16724.5 of the Government Code. The bonds, when sold, shall be and constitute a valid and binding obligation of the State of California, and the full faith and credit of the State of California is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of the principal of, and interest on, the bonds as the principal and interest become due and payable. Pursuant to this section, the Treasurer shall sell the bonds authorized by the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act Finance Committee created pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.667 at any different times that are necessary to service ex
|
1220, RE: Full Text of Prop 40 Posted by , Wed Feb-27-02 02:36 PM
It's just like I said before, there doesn't seem to be anything overly suspicious in this proposition. I guess the beautiful thing about propositions is the fact that the language (ie; legalese) seems very specific but it can be interpreted a million different ways. I usually don't take my cues about how I vote from anybody else, but I am seriously confused as to what damage Prop 40 could cause. I don't know about the rest of you guys but, Fishing for me is like a sickness that has been spreading since I was 5 yrs. old, and I'll be damned before I let ANYBODY take that right away from me.
I guess my main hope would be to get an opinion from somebody who is either non-biased or Pro-fisherman, but in all actuality I don't see this proposition as a direct threat to fisherman.... I mean don't we all want clean water to fish in????????????? I may be simplifying the point a bit, I know it ain't that simple.
In addition to being a fisherman I am an avid naturalist (something I believe all TRUE fisherman are to an extent) and I would love to see Parks get more money, I would love to see the gov't go out there and try to acquire land that lays in sensitive areas for the protection of wildlife. Conservation is crucial to our way of life, Closures suck, but in some cases they can be necessary... But I believe that closures should be supported by mountains of evidence, I also believe that closures should be the LAST RESORT.
I really and truly do not believe that Southern Cal needed a closure on Sculpin (Scorpaena guttata), but one was proposed any how... We as fisherman need to be organized when it comes to issues like this, but the thing that sucks is that most of us have no idea as to whether this Prop 40 is dangerous or not........ those that do know the answer need to give us more details so we can make an informed vote........
Well I think I spewed enough for now, but I need to know why this prop needs to be shut down, cause it would really suck If I was trying support my habit, and ended up hurting it.
Tight Lines............
|
1221, RE: Full Text of Prop 40 Posted by Sacto John, Fri Mar-01-02 07:25 AM
I have asked the lawers that I work for how Prop 40 might affect our (anglers)interests. All of them replied that it matters on how the language is intrepetated. Going by this it might be best to vote no on the prop because of the abiguity in the language but then agin all props are written is the same way. It comes down to the fact that we need to vote for legislators that share our views on issues that are imporant to us and that might be inclined to intrepet laws in a way that is favorable to us as anglers.
John
|
1222, RE: Full Text of Prop 40 Posted by , Thu Feb-28-02 09:00 AM
Thanks for providing this text. There is very much to like in this proposition, the kind that I and many anglers always voted for. One thing that many of us would like to know is how likely is it that one or more private groups that may have an anti-angling agenda might receive funds if it passes? Have columnist Holland and others become overly suspicious these days or is there really a threat? I no longer have his 2/22/02 WON article but I recall that he mentioned one or two such groups. Can anyone enlighten us?
Currently I do not feel very comfortable voting for Prop 40, but I must admit that I am also uneasy about voting against it because of the possibility that my suspicions may be unwarranted. The one thing that I am happy about is that a thoughtful thread on this topic is developing.
Thanks to all participants in this discussion.
Bob
|
1223, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by swimbait, Wed Feb-27-02 01:11 PM
I'm all for conservation of natural resources. It's just very difficult to tell what the end result of what they are talking about here will mean for fisherman. Does "protection" or waterways equate into no fishing? Certainly in some people's eyes it might. The word "fishing" isn't written once in the proposition so it's kind of a grey area on that. Maybe you guys can shed some light on what you've heard as far as impact to fishing from this proposition.
One thing I think could be a positive is more $$ for buying parks and recreation areas. The quarry ponds are a new park and have made available some good fishing in an urban area. Do they have a lot of lame rules there? You bet, but it's still fishing where there wasn't fishing before.
|
1224, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by Ken A, Thu Feb-28-02 03:48 AM
I've read the entire text and I can't see the threat. I'm like Rob and Calico and would normally vote yes on something that will pump money into our parks. I need someone to specifically point out where in the proposition they think that they could limit our fishing rights.
|
1225, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Thu Feb-28-02 07:48 AM
Look at the money!!!
One on the main problems is that the people working for the closures etc. (and against us) stand to get a large chunk of OUR tax dollars to aid in their continued fight. It sucks that you can't trust anything political anymore - vote No! My $.02.
Fuzzy
|
1226, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Sun Mar-03-02 11:42 AM
prop 40 gets 2.5 billion $ to aquire develop and protect land in calif. To do this you WILL see a lot of signs in places you've always been able to go. Those signs WILL read"NO PUBLIC ACCESS",PERIOD> So go ahead and watch still more public lands and more public money get used for the environazis war on outdoors enthusiasts. dbajimbo
|
1227, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Sun Mar-03-02 05:51 PM
Well I know a couple of staffers that work Rohrabacher, US Congressman for HB. What they told me is that it could have some affect upon fisheries, but only as an after effect. They told me that going after the fishing industry isnt of concern to them. They did make a point of pollution, and said that some do come from careless fishermen. I retorted that even people going to the beach or washing their cars will pollute in some way. Ive read the prop, and can see where it could lead to some closures, but it would be a strecth. They had pointed out to me some nature centers in HB that some money was going to be put into. However, all politicians will always throw something specific out to throw off their scent. They also said that this prop will pass with flying colors. They said dont be surprised if it passes with one of the highest ratios.
Regards, Mike
|
1228, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by Ken A, Mon Mar-04-02 11:37 AM
I have to admit that I was pretty confused and not convinced to vote no yet. In researching Prop 40 I read this post from Dean Sault over on NCBF that convinced me to vote no:
"There's not one word in this proposition about boats or motors. But, among many other things, it provides up to $832,500,000 for "local assistance programs". This money will be awarded as grants to any government OR nonprofit organization for the purpose of the "California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002".
Guess who are qualified as "nonprofit" organizations and will undoubtedly have staffs of "grant writers" submitting proposals for this money? Yep! The Blue Water Network! And, a host of other radical environmental groups.
And in addition, there are several specified "grants" written right into the law...special allocations (that means special interests or pork-barrel politics) for the following:
Central Park of Rancho Cucamonga ($10,000,000) City of Los Angeles for parks ($5,000,000) City of Los Angeles for Sepulveda Basin parkland ($5,000,000)
Wonder why Los Angeles gets their own special funds? Then we have another section of the law that allocates money as follows:
State Coastal Conservancy ($200,000,000) California Tahoe Conservancy ($40,000,000 - these are the same people that got 2-strokes banned on Lake Tahoe.) SantaMonica Mountains Conservancy ($40,000,000) Coachella Valley Mountains Convervancy ($20,000,000) San Juan River Conservancy ($25,000,000) San Gabriel and Lower LA Rivers and Mountains Conservancy ($40,000,000) Baldwin Hills Conservancy ($40,000,000) San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy ($40,000,000)
And HERE'S THE BIGGEST THREAT!!! $50,000,000 to the California Air Resources Board (the CARB Nazi's)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's a lot more in this Prop 40 that I don't have time to investigate further. But, it does not say one word about boats or outboard motors...just about protecting our water. And, it just gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the agencies that are responsible for recent attacks on our way of life. Draw your own conclusions!
NO on Prop 40!
.....NaCl
|
1229, RE: Prop 40 threat to anglers Posted by , Mon Mar-25-02 11:39 AM
This is a little behind,but, I was going to fish Coyote Lake in Santa Clara County and found that you have to be prepared to prove that you bought your fuel at a Union 76 or you are violating the non-MTBE fuel policy/law there. This is a county run reservoir check it out at http://claraweb.co.santa-clara.ca.us/parks This could be a model of what's to come with Prop 40. Mark
| |