Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunters Pa
Article did not say much, pontificating that more time is needed. There were a couple comments that they see more, and bigger fish/crustaceans in MPA zones than non-MPAs. I submit that this is due to selecting preferred habitat for protection over lesser areas. It's like saying we are protecting a mountain from logging pine trees, then saying "see, there are now more and bigger pines on this protected mountain that in this unprotected zone that just so happens to be in the Mojave Desert".
I found it especially interesting that it was alongside an article on the beaches losing sand, proposing replenishing the beaches. Laguna beach is not, by nature, that nice sandy beach the tourists and locals seem to love. Sand is trucked in, destroying/covering the natural rocky coastline (i.e. preferred habitat) that MPA proponents so vehemently defend from we "destructive users". Trucking in sand destroys the natural state that is supposed to be protected, but that is acceptable (and paid for) by the city in the name of drawing in the tourists.
Try pointing this out to one of the self-appointed enforcers that threaten to have children arrested for climbing on the rocks. See how fast the names and profanity fly.
OK, rant (temporarily) over.  |
Liberals are always scewing data to suit their agenda. Your example is perfect. Through their manipulation of data, they often, as you also point out, gloss over the great many problems and conflicts they conveniently ignore. All this in hopes of the ignorant masses patting them on the back for a great job as that natural reef is being engulfed by the sand they bring in. Good job guys! You killed a reef (Probably many), completely altered the natural habitat, but as long as your property values are high (Thanks to that nice white sand beach you made), who cares, right?