[Kayak_Bernie]

This article hits the nail on the head. I am all for setting aside areas for conservation, just as we set aside wildlife refuges where no hunting is allowed. But we do have some wildlife refuges that DO allow hunting. Do you know why?? Because the people in charge of managing them have studies and research that back up the fact that recreational hunting for certain species has no measurable negative effect on the refuge ecosytem, and that increased use by hunters can raise awareness to save other places, and provide needed funds to manage the refuge.
As a scientist it boggles my mind that you would close a place to recreational fishing indefinitely. Sure i understand that certain areas that are particularly special should be protected, but there should be a management PLAN, NOT a management REACTION. If you don't fund the study to see what you are doing actually has merit, then the fact that you preserved the area in the first place becomes purely superficial and not scientific. If after 5 years being closed some one could say that there has been a 15% increase in WSB fingerlings, and a 25% increase in lobster etc. But just to say it's closed and we cant fund any research is a total cop out. Its the political equivalent to " Because I said so!"

Give me some solid research that says that recreational fisherman have had an overall negative impact on our fisheries and I will show a place that has massive commercial over fishing.

For example Drift nets targeting swordfish and thresher sharks throw away 66% of their catch (in pounds) as bycatch. That would be equal to you catching/ killing/ throwing back two 30lb halibut when you keep one 30lb white sea bass. No recreational fisherman in his/her right mind would do that, yet the commercial industry in the US wastes over 2 BILLION pounds of fish every year...

We as recreational fisherman are the best conservationist, and advocates. Make your voices heard, join CCA, call your congressional representatives and your senators.