Let's reshape the debate - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

dsafety · 10-06-2010, 09:45 PM

I will be attending the next MLPA meeting but will be ceding my time to one of the more experienced members of our family. I have plenty to say but feel that others might be more effective relaying the message.

So what message should we be sending. We could talk about the corrupt process. This will fall on deaf ears since the people we would be speaking to are deeply involved in that process. That aspect of this battle will likely have to play out in the courts.

We could talk about the bad science and quid-pro-quo back room deals. Again, I do not think this message would gain much traction at this time.

It occurred to me that rather than fighting our opponents, we might be better off proposing an alternative to regional closures that would probably be much more effective in the long run. How about turning the discussion away from closures and focusing on significant changes to the size and take limits along with seasonal restrictions for certain species.

The recovery of the WSB and BSB population can be directly attributed to these kinds of regulations, (along with getting rid of the gill nets and long line commercial fishing in the coastal waters.) Catch and release is something that many of already do most of the time. Why not take it a step further?

I am sure that this approach will not sit well with the sportfishing industry and some commercial fishing enterprises but a reasonably crafted reduced take approach would certainly be better than a total ban.

Are we too late to propose this kind of a solution? Is the idea too reasonable to appeal to our opponents? If we change the conversation to a solution that has proved successful and fulfills everyone's stated objectives, we might be able to craft a more reasonable result.

Any thoughts on this approach?

Bob

10-06-2010, 09:45 PM	#1
dsafety Olivenhain Bob Join Date: May 2008 Location: Olivenhain, CA Posts: 1,121	Let's reshape the debate I will be attending the next MLPA meeting but will be ceding my time to one of the more experienced members of our family. I have plenty to say but feel that others might be more effective relaying the message. So what message should we be sending. We could talk about the corrupt process. This will fall on deaf ears since the people we would be speaking to are deeply involved in that process. That aspect of this battle will likely have to play out in the courts. We could talk about the bad science and quid-pro-quo back room deals. Again, I do not think this message would gain much traction at this time. It occurred to me that rather than fighting our opponents, we might be better off proposing an alternative to regional closures that would probably be much more effective in the long run. How about turning the discussion away from closures and focusing on significant changes to the size and take limits along with seasonal restrictions for certain species. The recovery of the WSB and BSB population can be directly attributed to these kinds of regulations, (along with getting rid of the gill nets and long line commercial fishing in the coastal waters.) Catch and release is something that many of already do most of the time. Why not take it a step further? I am sure that this approach will not sit well with the sportfishing industry and some commercial fishing enterprises but a reasonably crafted reduced take approach would certainly be better than a total ban. Are we too late to propose this kind of a solution? Is the idea too reasonable to appeal to our opponents? If we change the conversation to a solution that has proved successful and fulfills everyone's stated objectives, we might be able to craft a more reasonable result. Any thoughts on this approach? Bob