View Single Post
Old 12-08-2007, 03:11 PM   #12
lamb
Senior Member
 
lamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,563
Great discussion.

Looking at what happened up North, the only question is how big of a hit are we going to get. We ought to come together and do everything in our power to try to “minimize the damage”.

"United sport-fishing anglers front" approach has its values, but I don’t think it is bad to have kayak fishing community interests represented from sort of a separate body. Yes we are tiny compared to boaters, but we’re another interested party. We share concerns of other sport fishing folks, but we’re rather different. The impact on kayakers will be much greater if they put certain inshore areas off limits to fishing. Boaters will just motor away further out; the kayakers don’t have that option.

The Jewel, having existing preserve, is probably among the 1st things they’ll be looking at. Expanding preserve lines sure seems like an easy road for these committees to turn to. We, the kayak fishing community, have to make sure they understand that expending those preserve lines for even a few miles can effectively put the fishing grounds out of kayakers’ reach.

Not sure whether they would consider it or even understand it, but it could be argued that the distance from the (relatively) “shielded” kayak beach launch is something they should be sensitive of... I’m not a lawyer, but I would think you could make a case that we’re being discriminated against?! I don’t know, but playing the discrimination card seems to work in arguing rights discussions.

We have The Battle For La Jolla coming up ladies and gents.

I don't have a great record - lost more than a few things in my life...

But I'm ready to fight for LJ like a lion. Let me know how can I help.
__________________
[------------------------
<)))< ....b-a-a-a-a
lamb is offline   Reply With Quote