rojodiablo
01-19-2009, 10:43 PM
"Paul, I was looking for our representatives take before taking a position.
so forget who made the request. what do you think?"
If the Clemente and San Nic Islands are included will it just mean more closures, or will it mean less closures outside of the Navy excluded areas? (ie if some of San Clemente is closed, will less of Catalina be closed? this could be a reasonable trade - I want to save the areas that most spearos regularly use........ and a hell of a lot more guys dive catalina and the coast than Cemente..... 6 miles of the Catalina or Laguna coast are worth much more to most spearos than 6 mi of the SCI coast.... great fishing there or not.
But, if it's just more closures without a reduction elsewhere..... we should fight it. that's why I posted the request here. Name withheld please.
It's a great question (Sir), and one that we need to consider. The rub that FIN and RFA have with this is: the state managers/ enviros want closures at SCI, and San Nic. But...(Here's the Bullshit rub!!) they do not want to accept, nor use, ANY federal science data on the islands that already exist. Furthermore, the state controllers of the MLPA process do not want to consider the federal reserves that were created and are currently in place at the Channel Islands. So, they say they want a network, an unbroken chain of MPA's up the coastline. But, they do not want to recognize the existing federal reserves as part of the areas protected. It's like saying you want to have 1 billion gallons of water stored in lakes in SoCal for drinking. But.... Big Bear lake is not tied to the water grid, so it does not count. Even though it serves a million people in the mountain, and down at the foothills, it won't be counted as part of the total water supply, because the state does not have a hand in it.
The reason for DISCOUNTING the federal reserves at the Channel Islands is to come at us and say" We need to protect 20% of the coastal structure. But since we aren't counting the Channel Islands as part of the protection, we must implement 4 more reserves along the coast, and at the other islands."
The problem for the state with using the Navy data is...the Navy has done a fabulous job with their habitat and fishery management. And the state wants NOTHING to do with anyone else doing a good job where they have been failing. Much like GM & Ford whining about Toyota and Honda. "We do a lousy job. They build a better car. It's not fair to us...." And, to top it off, they want all the good shit at SCI, and San Nic...and they expect us to lose 1/2 of Catalina on top of that!!! Basically....Screw that!!!
Feel free to discuss this in the open, it is good for the members to know how the state wants to skew a lot of science to basically screw us, and HARD. Thanks (Sir)!! Paul.
so forget who made the request. what do you think?"
If the Clemente and San Nic Islands are included will it just mean more closures, or will it mean less closures outside of the Navy excluded areas? (ie if some of San Clemente is closed, will less of Catalina be closed? this could be a reasonable trade - I want to save the areas that most spearos regularly use........ and a hell of a lot more guys dive catalina and the coast than Cemente..... 6 miles of the Catalina or Laguna coast are worth much more to most spearos than 6 mi of the SCI coast.... great fishing there or not.
But, if it's just more closures without a reduction elsewhere..... we should fight it. that's why I posted the request here. Name withheld please.
It's a great question (Sir), and one that we need to consider. The rub that FIN and RFA have with this is: the state managers/ enviros want closures at SCI, and San Nic. But...(Here's the Bullshit rub!!) they do not want to accept, nor use, ANY federal science data on the islands that already exist. Furthermore, the state controllers of the MLPA process do not want to consider the federal reserves that were created and are currently in place at the Channel Islands. So, they say they want a network, an unbroken chain of MPA's up the coastline. But, they do not want to recognize the existing federal reserves as part of the areas protected. It's like saying you want to have 1 billion gallons of water stored in lakes in SoCal for drinking. But.... Big Bear lake is not tied to the water grid, so it does not count. Even though it serves a million people in the mountain, and down at the foothills, it won't be counted as part of the total water supply, because the state does not have a hand in it.
The reason for DISCOUNTING the federal reserves at the Channel Islands is to come at us and say" We need to protect 20% of the coastal structure. But since we aren't counting the Channel Islands as part of the protection, we must implement 4 more reserves along the coast, and at the other islands."
The problem for the state with using the Navy data is...the Navy has done a fabulous job with their habitat and fishery management. And the state wants NOTHING to do with anyone else doing a good job where they have been failing. Much like GM & Ford whining about Toyota and Honda. "We do a lousy job. They build a better car. It's not fair to us...." And, to top it off, they want all the good shit at SCI, and San Nic...and they expect us to lose 1/2 of Catalina on top of that!!! Basically....Screw that!!!
Feel free to discuss this in the open, it is good for the members to know how the state wants to skew a lot of science to basically screw us, and HARD. Thanks (Sir)!! Paul.