Quote:
|
I'm busy with life and haven't been able to digest all of the paper or the issue, but I'm probably not as far to the right as you are.
|
As far to the right? This has nothing to do with partisan politics. I'm busy with life too, and after devoting 100s of hours over the past year to preserving reasonable fishing opportunity for kayak anglers, which means doing what I can to make sure the MLPA doesn't single our environmentally benign group out for punishment. I have little tolerance left for mis-statements, deliberate or out of ignorance (not yours, SR's).
Let me put my anger over Surfrider's Malibu position into a context that everyone who fishes La Jolla will understand. Let's say they endorsed closing all of La Jolla except a few acres of stringy kelp on the southern tip. It would be ok, right, because you'd have 100s of acres of sand to fish down to the pier. Right? Would you feel that was a 'fair' compromise?
Not at all, it would be the end of San Diego ocean kayak fishing.
That's exactly the fate Surfrider wishes to impose on Malibu's kayak anglers, people who are every bit as passionate about their sport as we are here.
For those who haven't been paying attention, there are three proposals. Don't believe the propaganda - proposal 1 is not a compromise, cross-interest proposal. Don't believe me, compare it with proposal 3 authored by representatives of the environmental NGOs without the need to deal with any grubby fishermen. If you need the details, contact me via PM.
Proposal 2 protects roughly 0.5% less acreage overall, achieves tremendous conservation, and does so at dramatically decreased socio-economic cost. It's a point the Surfrider of today ignored, whatever their past achivements. Despite the good faith efforts of many here on this board, they chose to disregard their fellow watermen, possibly at the cost of their own future loss of access. They no longer deserve support.
YES ON TWO