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

dsafety · 10-07-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurt

As reasonable as your proposal sounds, Bob, it doesn't stop fishing which is what some of the Extreme Environmentalists are really after, I believe. And I believe the MLPA requires closures of some sort with minimum requirements.

I agree, conservation not closures. But this process is not set up for that.

I hope that you are incorrect on this Kurt but you may be right. Those with extreme views on most issues usually fail to see the forest for the trees. PAL, what do you think?

Bob

GregAndrew · 10-07-2010, 01:07 PM

Bob, the ideas you mentioned were brought up at several of the meetings that I attended and also fell on deaf ears. Their reason was something to this effect (they were not mandated by the MLPA law to "change the current laws" but only to set up a coordinated set of Marine Protected Areas). So unless your argument deals with where and/or what size and type of MPA they are not interested.

PAL · 10-07-2010, 01:12 PM

Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period. Those words in particular will get you nowhere. You might even earn a lecture from one of the more pompous pro-closure commissioners.

That doesn't mean there's no merit in your broader suggestion. It speaks to the larger point that there's no buy-in from recreational fishermen as the entire process was stacked against us (receding goalposts, BRTF manipulation, an illusion of RSG consensus by marginalizing fishing interests in the so-called cross-interest group, etc).

There were opportunities to bring us on board, by allowing catch and release zones and making other reasonable concessions. They were always rebuffed. The excuses included difficulty of enforcement or some scientific notion of "Level of Protection." My conclusion? They were dumped because the people funding this process are opposed to all fishing.

See Terry's post in the other thread. Terry is in favor of marine conservation, even reserves. He can't support politically and ideologically driven closures.

dmrides · 10-07-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAL

Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period.

Damn that's too bad. I have been thinking about what I would say if I did not cede time and I was thinking along the lines of what Bob was saying.

When they noticed that whaling was decimating the whale populations, did they close all the oceans to fishing? No, they just said you can't kill whales. Since then their populations have come back. To me, that seems like real science.

It is really a shame that they refuse to hear any other alternatives to all out closures. Are full closures really what the DFG wants? Or just what they are being wrangled into?

roadx · 10-08-2010, 06:41 AM

i was thinkng around the same lines, lower fish limits and or raise sizes, or ban some species completely but leave the area open. in other words compromises without closers.

let the DFG do their jobs!!!!! was going to be my battle cry.

i will probably cede my time because im a bad public speakers and hopefully some will express my feelings better than i could.

10-08-2010, 06:41 AM	#5
roadx . Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,155	i was thinkng around the same lines, lower fish limits and or raise sizes, or ban some species completely but leave the area open. in other words compromises without closers. let the DFG do their jobs!!!!! was going to be my battle cry. i will probably cede my time because im a bad public speakers and hopefully some will express my feelings better than i could. __________________

10-07-2010, 01:07 PM	#2
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	Bob, the ideas you mentioned were brought up at several of the meetings that I attended and also fell on deaf ears. Their reason was something to this effect (they were not mandated by the MLPA law to "change the current laws" but only to set up a coordinated set of Marine Protected Areas). So unless your argument deals with where and/or what size and type of MPA they are not interested.

10-07-2010, 01:12 PM	#3
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period. Those words in particular will get you nowhere. You might even earn a lecture from one of the more pompous pro-closure commissioners. That doesn't mean there's no merit in your broader suggestion. It speaks to the larger point that there's no buy-in from recreational fishermen as the entire process was stacked against us (receding goalposts, BRTF manipulation, an illusion of RSG consensus by marginalizing fishing interests in the so-called cross-interest group, etc). There were opportunities to bring us on board, by allowing catch and release zones and making other reasonable concessions. They were always rebuffed. The excuses included difficulty of enforcement or some scientific notion of "Level of Protection." My conclusion? They were dumped because the people funding this process are opposed to all fishing. See Terry's post in the other thread. Terry is in favor of marine conservation, even reserves. He can't support politically and ideologically driven closures.