My old response to this topic from February 20012. 

"This idea scares the hell out of me.

It is a 500,000 acre chunk of land from Snow and Goat mountains all the way down to Lake Solano that people are seeking to "regulate" and "manage". 

This 500,000 acres is composed of Federal land, Wilderness areas, State land, University of California land, Fish and Game land, county and probably private property.  A few of their KEY points on why this is needed is ecenomic growth of Winters and Clear lake, illegal pot growers, invasive species, water quality, fire and "unmanaged recreation".

I think with the above listed powers to be, Federal, State and County, they should have a pretty good grasp on the above issues.  There is no shortage of regulation or regulating agencies for this state, much less for a newly designated 500,000 acre chunk of land.  This proposal is supposed to help coordinate management practices between agencies.  By bringing in a new stakeholder with their own ideas and goals for management?  It could possibly open up additional Federal funding opportunities.  Were broke already, sure why not.  Kind of like the "improvements" along Putah courtosy of Lois Wolk.

When I fist started to research this I figured it was nothing short of a land grab, which it may very well end up being some day.  But it certainly is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Now i am not totally crazy with the USFS or BLM's ability to fairly manage the land that they have under their control, but adding another regulatory stakeholder to the mix isn't going to help as the listed "issues" are already being managed by other agencies.  I see no need to duplicate things and find a solution by making another agency to further add to existing regulations.

I will be sending my letter to Congressman Mike thompson and my Representatives in opposition to this."

Berryessie wrote:

---

Your words are a lot quiter hear then the meeting.

---

 Agreed, though I have attended a few meetings and written a letter or three.  12-17 hour days with tight deadlines and little help doesn't leave much time to speak to politicians that don't care what people say.

Heck, the last time I went fishing was in April. 

The sad part is if the people attending were overwhelmingly in opposition to the proposal it probably wouldn't make a lick of difference to Mike Thompson, John Garamendi or the other panel members.

The question session seemed odd....um biased.  Did anybody in opposition speak or have the opportunity to speak?

The more I read about this the harder it is to believe it is nothing but a political land grab that will lead to excessive restrictions and loss of public AND private property. 

Richard-its unfortunate that you didn't fill out the speaking request form, which those that have attended these types of meetings know is SOP. That said, there should have been someone at the sign in tables to explain what that little piece of paper was for-the form didn't say what it was for speaking.

There were by my count between 200-300 attendees. Some time after Berryessie left, Thompson reorganized the requests and only those (20 or so) that were in opposition finished out the meeting-I believe they all got to speak. As B said, many were complaining about their past treatment by BR on Berryessa, but they exercised their right to be heard.

Yes, the supporters greatly outnumbered those in opposition. Personally, as an advocate for the PC fishery, I don't see any added direct benefits to designation for PC. PC makes up 5 miles of the SW border of the area. We have federal management of Berryessa, and state and county administration of the tail water in place already. That's enough to work with.