Dinosaur populations are down 100% from their historical levels. So is the saber-tooth tiger population.
Closures will save these, along with, as the article mentioned, global warming and acidification! whoo hoo...
All kidding aside, I think fishermen are not objecting to reasonable closures. But it sucks that the law was passed in 1999 based on a $250K/year cost estimate to address water pollution, over-building, over-fishing, etc., and gets turned into an anti-fishing referendum that will cost $30M-$40M a year that the State doesn't have to enforce. And other activities/actors (anchoring, water polluters) that damage habitat more, much more, are given a pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Flatfish
"Some local fish populations are down 90% from their historical levels."
Is this true? What populations is this person referencing? Any in La Jolla?
"Some commercial and recreational fishermen are resisting protected areas out of fear of effects to their business - and their voices are loud."
Nothing wrong with being protective of your business. But I don't think even fishermen, for the most part, object to some protected areas. The question is what areas? (I could be wrong about this.)
"And the rest of us will be able to dive, surf, and swim in thriving kelp forests teeming with life."
Are they not teeming with life now? It seems that way to me when I go out there. But I'm not a scientist or an activist.
These are just a few questions I have. I admit, I don't know much about the fish populations in the areas that I like to frequent other than they seem fine to me. I don't see anybody destroying kelp. In fact, it seems like kelp is ever expanding throughout the near shore areas that I can see. If I'm wrong, I accept that. I see what I see with my own eyes, not what other people say I should see.
Wayne
|