Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: AB 3030 - Outlaw Fishing and Hunting?!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,062

    Default AB 3030 - Outlaw Fishing and Hunting?!

    https://keepamericafishing.org/action-center/

    Appreciate any and all insight and thoughts.

    And, this is not even the newer movement that may sweep over WA, OR, and CA to close all Salmon fishing in support of the ORCAs?!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,581

    Default Ab 3030....

    Just finished scanning the amended bill and can't see anything that specifically bans fishing. It does say that the CA Fish&Wildlife Comm., will retain there regulatory powers and that CA DF&W will be involved but to what extent?? The amended bill seeks to solve the problems of the world by conserving land/waters of the state and 30% of the worlds oceans by collaborating with the feds, other states and other nations governments to accomplish this, all to stop climate change. Undoubtedly well intentioned but a bit of an overreach (MLPA's weren't enough??). IMO, it appears to have something in it that will offend everyone (developers, water contractors, etc, etc....).
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    alameda
    Posts
    293

    Default

    This seems to be a bill where the stated goal is to set-aside 30% of the states (and ultimately the nations) lands and waters for protected status. It further states the ultimate goal is to set-aside 50% of the states (and the nations) land and water. Visitation would be allowed as long as the activities of the visitors are not in conflict with the stated protection goals. So if the areas purpose is to protect wildlife than yes hunting would probably be prohibited. If the goal is the protection of aquatic species then yes probably fishing would be prohibited. It says the primary goal in creating these areas is the reduction of green house gasses and it is supposed to curtail development but, it would also curtail other uses that would or might infringe on the goals of the protection areas. It is very vague in that no specific areas of the state are mentioned. They could also setup protected areas for Salmon or Steelhead spawning beds possibly or protected areas for specific tree types. The bill does not say what areas are to be protected just that a percentage of the land and a percentage of the water.

    It is a short read so you should read it.

    It also states that the guidelines to be followed are the guidelines from The International Union for Conservation of Nature. Critics of this organization usually point out that their policies prohibit human interaction with the land or water most notoriously forcing the removal of indigenous tribes from the Serengeti in order to curtail poaching activities.

    Authors/Sponsors are six Democrats from the LA County area led by Ash Karla District 27 (LA/San Bernardino County), joined by Richard Bloom District 50 (San Diego/Riverside), Eloise Gomez Reyes District 47 (LA/Orange County) and Robert Rivas District 30 (LA/Ventura County). Co Authors are Lena Gonzalez District 33 (LA county/Long Beach) and Ben Allen District 26 (LA/Ventura County/Santa Monica area).

    It is currently before the CA Natural Resources and Water committee the next hearings for Assembly bills are Wednesday, August 5th ~ 9:00 am ~ Senate Chamber and Wednesday, August 12th ~ 9:00 am ~ Room 4203
    Last edited by tcorfey; 08-01-2020 at 02:49 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Davis, CA, USA, Earth
    Posts
    20,689

    Default

    "Authors/Sponsors are six Democrats from the LA County area led by Ash Karla District 27 (LA/San Bernardino County), joined by Richard Bloom District 50 (San Diego/Riverside), Eloise Gomez Reyes District 47 (LA/Orange County) and Robert Rivas District 30 (LA/Ventura County). Co Authors are Lena Gonzalez District 33 (LA county/Long Beach) and Ben Allen District 26 (LA/Ventura County/Santa Monica area)."

    6 politicians from LA county should be a red flag for many..........all about the water.

    If California was a Country it would be #7 in GNP so that is why the "politicians" and "lobbyists" are here.

    California's water has the oldest history of corruption on the West coast.
    Bill Kiene

    Fly fishing travel consultant
    Certified FFF Casting Instructor
    Email: billkiene63@gmail.com
    Cell: 530/753-5267
    Web: www.billkiene.com

    Contact me for any reason........
    ______________________________________

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    alameda
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Did a quick check and 52.1 % of the land in CA is already public land. So overall the land in CA is already protected from development. So what is AB3030 going to do if we have already surpassed their long term goal of protecting 50% of the land in CA from development? I don't think our politicians are really spending their time and energy wisely.
    Last edited by tcorfey; 08-02-2020 at 03:14 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Davis, CA, USA, Earth
    Posts
    20,689

    Default

    Who is going to let these politicians know these facts?
    Bill Kiene

    Fly fishing travel consultant
    Certified FFF Casting Instructor
    Email: billkiene63@gmail.com
    Cell: 530/753-5267
    Web: www.billkiene.com

    Contact me for any reason........
    ______________________________________

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,581

    Default Ab 3030....

    I agree with tcorfey. In its present form, this bill has about as much chance of passage as a snowball in H__l!! Maybe it's a placeholder....
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,062

    Default

    I understand the bill has already passed through the assembly and now is before the Senate.

    IMO, it favors "Preservation" and not conservation. So, I would expect no access by fisherman or hunters. The MLPAs closed off fishing at beaches I used to fish a lot in the 80's and 90's. Instead of spreading out beach fisherman, it put them all in the same places......

    Lobbyists....... A very large and notable Fishing equipment manufacturer chose to leave CA calculating that it was better spending money developing markets in other parts of the country vs. fighting to conserve/enhance what was left in CA.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,581

    Post AB 3030 Assembly Analysis

    According to the analysis of 6/4/20 the bill was still in the Assembly and not in the Senate as yet. The analysis appears to acknowledge the lack of specifics in meeting goals stated in the proposed policies. There're some interesting stats about land/water/oceans to be protected described in the analysis. Apparently, the opposition has been busy for some time. The following statement in opposition was taken from the analysis:

    "Arguments in Opposition:
    Opponents of this bill, such as the building industry, point out that about only 6% of California's land is developed, and this bill may make it more difficult to resolve the housing crisis. Opponents are concerned about the lack of explicit definitions in the bill to make the goal measurable. Three coalitions (of outdoors and hunting groups, commercial fishing groups, and recreational fishing groups) oppose the bill unless amended to provide key definitions, clarify broad and ambiguous statements, and explicitly acknowledge existing protections and ongoing conservation initiatives. The coalitions also oppose unless amended to clarify that sustainably managed hunting and outdoor recreation, recreational fishing, and commercial fishing, respectively, actively contribute to land and ocean protection and to ensure these activities will not be curtailed by this bill. The fishing coalitions object to the negative characterization of the state's existing ocean protection and fisheries management systems and believe the bill will negatively impact the fishing and seafood industry."


    One of the provisions in the bill would attempt to create opportunities for communities which are economically disadvantaged or of color to these areas. This provision seems like it would be counter to the goal of limiting access to others. Just one of the parts of this bill that co ntributes to ambiguity.

    Actually, the fishing manufacturer moving out of state might have nothing to do with this bill. Others have done the same in the past (e.g. Winston).
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Davis, CA, USA, Earth
    Posts
    20,689

    Default

    Does anyone here know much about "Agenda 21"..........

    I think the long term plan is to get everyone out of the rural and open land and into big cities.

    Agenda 21 is an International plan for the One World Order.

    I think 173 countries signed up for it at a United Nations meeting?

    It is being implemented in every city, county, and state in America.

    The word "sustainable development" should be a clue.

    None of it is a secret...it is right out in the open.

    ______________________________________

    "Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

    Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

    The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

    The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002."
    Bill Kiene

    Fly fishing travel consultant
    Certified FFF Casting Instructor
    Email: billkiene63@gmail.com
    Cell: 530/753-5267
    Web: www.billkiene.com

    Contact me for any reason........
    ______________________________________

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •