Let me make this statement. From the time that the MLPA was dug back up from the dust covered shelves in the capital, and brought back to haunt the this generation of fisherman I have always been curious as to why the first course of action to encourage growth rates of pelagics, such as yellowtail, would not be taken into consideration before a complete closure was deemed the best option. The top option that should have and maybe or maybe not considered is to limit the keep of such species. For example in the white seabass restoration project, which I am sure you know about, is the perfect example for a successful restoration project. There is an obvious boom in populations presently and if you dont believe me heres some numbers for you page 33(
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/wsfmp/pdfs/wsfmp.pdf). If the take was restricted and length limits or slot limits were enforced would that not allowing for adequate breeding aged fish, boosting fish populations simply by increasing a certain species biomass in any ecosystem.
Is that not a valid reason to question the MLPA? To go to the most extreme restriction while spending 30 -40 million dollars a year to fund this program isn't that strange as well. Our government is corrupted there is no doubt about that. Who is getting the short end of the stick? The fisherman who are out there for sport while at the same time using the resources given them for their family who are spending their days stuck making enough to buy a kayak while keeping their family safe and have enough money to send off to our politicians who are are making this country more and more in debt with each breathe I take. Some of us don't make the same amount of money as are "trusted" politicians. So who in this day and age has the swing in the vote. If I stepped up to a podium at the capital and said my peace and during my speech Sigourney Weaver shakes her head in disagreement who is going to have the greater influence. Now to say this analogy is absurd is false in several meetings this is exactly what is going on. With many members appointed in the regional stakeholder group (RSG), a science advisory team (SAT), the California Department of Fish and Game, MLPA Initiative staff, the public and a policy-level blue ribbon task force (BRTF) simply in their head passing off fisherman public comments because they don't have a fancy title to show importance. So I ask you MLPA supporters, in this debate what is fair? To shut off local saltwater fishing (the productive areas of course), or to limit it. Both we assume to have the same results the only concern is time. Sure it may take longer, but if you keep both sides happy is not more productive than pleasing one side and having anarchy and resentment within your community?