|
I attended the ecotrust meeting in La Jolla a couple weeks ago with Jim Sammons. I was very involved with the channel islands process a few years back, and this ecotrust process is a very good thing. It's a weapon we didn't have back then.
The MLPA process is a big game of give and take. Usually both sides come out at extremes and eventually a few reasonable individuals sit down and hammer out something that works for both sides, but not after a lot of blood, sweat and tears throughout the process. Some of our fishing spots are likely to coincide with the enviro's prime habitat spots, but there will also be habitat that isn't prime fishing grounds and vice versa, so there's room to "make a deal" with other interest groups. The ecotrust process is the process by which value (economic mostly) is placed on each of our fishing spots. So for example if La Jolla is determined as one of the major spots of socio-economic importance, the enviros would likely have to give up quite a bit elsewhere if they propose a closure with that much impact.
That's why it's important for everyone to give their input in this ecotrust process. The more real numbers determined by this process, the harder it will be to close those areas. Grego is completely right. Remaining silent is the worst thing we could do because it will show up in the report as low socio-economic impact and be easier to close. Even if the enviro groups target only fishermen's favorite spots to fish (which is not the point of the MLPA process...) if La Jolla is determined to have a $100 billion impact a year, it's not closing... This is the CA government we're talking about...
(btw- in the channel islands process all socio-economic impact numbers were determined by an assigned economist with no mention of methods, credentials or loyalties... I like this way better...)
|