Quote:
Originally Posted by PAL
The opening portion of the Surfrider report reads like an executive summary, suggesting they support WG 1 and 3. In fact, only in OC do they care for anything from WG 2, and that one they find insufficient. 1 = 3, an outrageous, extreme position.
Most damning is Surfrider's position on Malibu, where they too sell out Malibu's kayak anglers to justify lesser but still devastating closures at Palos Verdes. This is precious turf to us, birthplace of modern kayak fishing. They strike right at our heart.
I will never again sympathize with a surfing access or preservation issue. I will remember this betrayal of fellow watermen and women forever. I hope you are with me, that you'll withdraw all support of this group.
I'm ready to take a bulldozer to Trestles and build that proposed highway they hate. And I'm looking forward to the day when either one of their fellow environmental NGOs or an aggrieved fishing group sues the state to compell closure of the wildlife and habitat damaged by surfers at Swamis and the like.
The meeting doesn't start until Tuesday, so there's still time for the Surfrider leadership to make this right. I urge them to do so or they may yet rue the consequences.
|
I'm busy with life and haven't been able to digest all of the paper or the issue, but I'm probably not as far to the right as you are. I would welcome folks to join me as members of Surfrider and help influence their views. I disagreed with them on the Trestles issue because of their claim it would impact the surf break, I did not support the private road on public land but didn't believe any of the construction would actually impact the break at Trestles. Surfrider and Coastkeeper have done more to clean our rivers, bays, and coastlines than anyone else. I like to consume fresh healthy fish. We should partner with them rather than call them the enemy.