|
Reviews at the 5-year mark were part of the plan. You need data points for course correction. The more frequent the data points the more accurate a picture you have of success/failure of a course of action.
"For example, Mastrup said that if a marine protected area isn’t producing bigger fish, the scientists would have to ask: Why is it not producing?"
Yeah - God forbid we actually bring science into this thing. Why not wait 20 years? 30 years? Most of the Malibu & Laguna money thrown at this thing would LOVE that, keeping those pesky, smelly fishermen off of THEIR beach and out of THEIR view.
Trying to maintain the natural state of the coast? Yeah, that's why they truck in loads and loads of sand to cover up the naturally rocky shoreline.
& lets think about WHY there is less $ for the study. What is the primary source of funding for DFW? LICENSES! Take away areas you can fish and you will have less licenses sold. Then they can demonstrate a decline in public interest in the activity, logically progressing into reduced impact of present and future closures.
|