An invitation to vent our anger about the MLPA on LA Times -

[Ready 2 Go]

Pete Thomas is giving us a chance. This is on the front page on the internet version

Take advantage. Please.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2009/08/vote-on-marine-reserves-off-northcentral-coast-not-to-anglers-liking.html


Take advantage or let this be the typical post.


do something now or ignore it
it wont get better by wishing.
if you are not willing to sacrifice,why should any one else?
we have extracted from this earth for thousands of years.
time to realize the well is not bottomless.
i feel for the fisherman but this is not the old world order.
the industry i worked in for 30 years is gone
are the fisherman going to worry about me?
welcome to a conservatives dream:you are on your own,
sink or swim and dont bother me with your problems.
self interest trumps empathy and long term sustainability .
good luck to all




The other MLPA story in today's edition.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fishing6-2009aug06,0,5559027.story

______________

Commissioner Daniel W. Richards and President Jim Kellogg opposed the measure, saying the commission should first wait to judge the success of marine protected areas along the Central Coast. They also expressed doubt over whether the state could afford enforcement costs.

Supporters dismissed that concern. "Budgets come and budgets go, recessions come and recessions go," said Commissioner Michael Sutton. "What's going on here is more important than that."
_______________

Voice you “anger” to the LA Times it only takes a minute or so. Maybe TV will pick it up.

Be nice some post have been removed. TIA

Ready 2 Go

[Ready 2 Go]

We got 35 comments more than most opinion pieces but we definately got some MLPA supporters coming out in force.


Here is another quote:


Couple of minor points, to be followed by some MAJOR ones:
"It will create 22 marine protected areas and ban or restrict fishing in nearly 20% of coastal waters between Half Moon Bay and Point Arena."

Actually, there are 24 MPAs and nearly 90% remains open to fishing -- though why should accuracy matter?
"State game wardens complained that they're already overworked and may not be able to guard against poaching and other violations."
Again, not quite accurate. According a prior post
in the LA Times itself, and the original SacBee article, 'State game wardens' did not complain -- it was an individual who is a representative of the Game Wardens Union that complained.

Links here, just in case something thinks I'm making this up:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outposts/2009/08/marine-protected-areas-in-northern-california-up-for-vote-today.html

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2036097.html

Also regarding this quote:
"It's too early to determine the effectiveness there but surveys last year within reserves established in 2003 around the Channel Islands found 50% more rockfish, sheephead, lingcod, lobster and other species."
Too early? Setting aside the fact that the statement itself includes positive increases being reported. How about the 50 locations worldwide that have ALREADY shown huge successes (including in FL?) -- places where the fisherman are now pushing for expansions of MPAs?

So those are just some of the minor issues I have with this article, but here are some of the MAJOR issues - one of the few quotes highlighted in this article are about recreational fishing...

"For me the most painful is an area called Fitzgerald's Reef,..." said Capt. William Smith of the recreational fishing boat Rip Tide, which runs from Half Moon Bay. "That's always been a major fishery for us."
Seriously???

Fishing for fun (i.e., recreation) trumps ensuring we have future fish stocks and a working ocean?

Are we that self-absorbed, self-consumed and short sighted? Has the recession not taught us anything about living beyond our means, personally or cumulatively as a population?

And lastly...
“It’s a fishy business that this expensive new program claims to protect the ocean, but in reality won’t even address water pollution, which we all know is a major issue. All it does is ban fishing, which ironically, is already heavily regulated and studies show California is one of the least-fished, best protected areas in the world."

This is rich.

Water pollution, as in urban runoff, this is what's removing tons of fish from our oceans every year? Is there a study or a story about that I'm missing?

The last dead zone I heard of was in Santa Monica Bay when we were dumping raw sewage into it from Hyperion. It was a bunch of environmentalist were the ones that fought for secondary treatment, not any coalition of fisherman.

Speaking of which, where are all the fisherman fighting for San Diego's sewage to be treated?

How totally disingenuous. Moreover, why is it always an either/or scenario -- why not fight pollution AND protect fish, why would anyone think they are somehow interchangeable substitutes?

And talk about "ironically" - this quote shows how anything can be twisted for effect (and how so many reporters no longer do any real journalism).

Look back at any (and in fact all) the fishing regulations that have ever been instigated in CA, which ones were conceived by fisherman? Which ones were overwhelming backed by fishermen? Which ones are even consistently embraced currently by fisherman?

Over and over again, we've seen fisheries decline due to overfishing -- in CA alone, some fish stocks have been decimated only 10% of their historic levels.

Fishing is NOT a right (despite the misrepresentation by another commenter on this posting) -- it is a privilege -- and EVEN if it were a right, have the common sense not to abuse it!

(for the record there is a CA constitutional provision stating, that “[t]he people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof.” -- but like any thing in the law (like the Freedom of Speech itself), this right is not absolute.

In fact, the same provision also provides that the legislature can determine “the conditions under which… fish may be taken,”

Moreover, historically its been recognized that fish are property of the state and its people, and are only the subject of commerce and consumption under those conditions that are best for the public good.
And avoiding a tragedy of the commons by saving the public good that is our ocean, is what this really should be about...It's a shame it isn't.
Posted by: nhb | August 06, 2009 at 04:56 PM


Thanks


Ready 2 Go