![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 754
|
Quote:
We're engaged at working within the process, with the belief that it will go forward with or without us. Please note that SAC, UASC, RFA, and many if not all the commercial fishing advocacy groups evidently share our opinion, as they are right there on the RSG too. I know it looks bad, but as one of the commercial guys said to me, "I'm not going to participate in cutting my own throat." The meaning? We wouldn't be at the table if there were nothing to gain. Otherwise, we'd walk. I say again, 5 of the 9 proposals in for analysis are fishing-friendly. That beats hell out of zero. A few more points. The MLPA has little to do with fisheries management. It is a habitat protection plan plain and simple. It will do little to benefit highly mobile species such as yellowtail and white seabass; this is really about the reefs, rockfish, bass, the lobsters and other invertebrates that scurry along the bottom. Money: MJ and I are not taking money from outside special interests (the RLFF). But so far we're ok; we have a budget of kayak-angler dollars we can dip into if needed to put gas in the tank. Timing: assuming the current schedule, the BRTF will choose a prefered alternative in Oct or Nov. The Fish and Game Commission will kick it around for another 6 months or so, possibly longer, before finalizing things. Even then, we'll get another several to enjoy the places destined for closure. I think we're roughly two years off at this point. Paul |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|