We're foooooked!

[PAL]

Paul, please expand on the above thoughts. As a former lifeguard, I can tell you that empowering untrained seasonal staff to enforce poorly thought-out regulations can be a big disaster. The idea that an 18 year old kid with no specific training would be asked to determine and enforce fishery regulations makes me shiver.

Maybe the best solution is to table the entire thing until conditons, both political and economic, have become more stable.

Bob

I've never worked in public safety, but I've experienced the problem you describe a number of times from the other side. State Park rangers who rush to just-landed kayaks, hot to find a violation, the DFG reg book in hand - and they don't know how to ID a fish.

And for those who do know their regulations it can still be a pain, witness the downright hostile National Parks ranger a friend and I ran into at the Channel Islands. She took one look at our fishing gear and became instantly agitated. We found out later that enforcing the nearby MPA was a nussiance which took her away from other, more important duties.

For these reasons, and the fact co-locating MPAs with established and popular access points denies the public the use of their resources, I feel its terrible policy. Yet the MLPA Master Plan Framework contains language encouraging such an outcome, both to save money and so the public can easily interact with the MPA for recreational and educational purposes.

When the topic of the budget woes came up during our recent RSG meetings here in San Diego, the idea briefly floated to the surface again. I'm sure it won't have been the last time as the state looks for ways to reduce the cost of enforcing new MPAs.

Bob, if you agree it is misguided, I suggest you say as much to the MLPA South Coast Blue Ribbon Task Force.