Let's reshape the debate - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

PAL · 10-07-2010, 01:12 PM

Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period. Those words in particular will get you nowhere. You might even earn a lecture from one of the more pompous pro-closure commissioners.

That doesn't mean there's no merit in your broader suggestion. It speaks to the larger point that there's no buy-in from recreational fishermen as the entire process was stacked against us (receding goalposts, BRTF manipulation, an illusion of RSG consensus by marginalizing fishing interests in the so-called cross-interest group, etc).

There were opportunities to bring us on board, by allowing catch and release zones and making other reasonable concessions. They were always rebuffed. The excuses included difficulty of enforcement or some scientific notion of "Level of Protection." My conclusion? They were dumped because the people funding this process are opposed to all fishing.

See Terry's post in the other thread. Terry is in favor of marine conservation, even reserves. He can't support politically and ideologically driven closures.

dmrides · 10-07-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAL

Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period.

Damn that's too bad. I have been thinking about what I would say if I did not cede time and I was thinking along the lines of what Bob was saying.

When they noticed that whaling was decimating the whale populations, did they close all the oceans to fishing? No, they just said you can't kill whales. Since then their populations have come back. To me, that seems like real science.

It is really a shame that they refuse to hear any other alternatives to all out closures. Are full closures really what the DFG wants? Or just what they are being wrangled into?

roadx · 10-08-2010, 06:41 AM

i was thinkng around the same lines, lower fish limits and or raise sizes, or ban some species completely but leave the area open. in other words compromises without closers.

let the DFG do their jobs!!!!! was going to be my battle cry.

i will probably cede my time because im a bad public speakers and hopefully some will express my feelings better than i could.

10-08-2010, 06:41 AM	#3
roadx . Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,155	i was thinkng around the same lines, lower fish limits and or raise sizes, or ban some species completely but leave the area open. in other words compromises without closers. let the DFG do their jobs!!!!! was going to be my battle cry. i will probably cede my time because im a bad public speakers and hopefully some will express my feelings better than i could. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-07-2010, 01:12 PM	#1
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period. Those words in particular will get you nowhere. You might even earn a lecture from one of the more pompous pro-closure commissioners. That doesn't mean there's no merit in your broader suggestion. It speaks to the larger point that there's no buy-in from recreational fishermen as the entire process was stacked against us (receding goalposts, BRTF manipulation, an illusion of RSG consensus by marginalizing fishing interests in the so-called cross-interest group, etc). There were opportunities to bring us on board, by allowing catch and release zones and making other reasonable concessions. They were always rebuffed. The excuses included difficulty of enforcement or some scientific notion of "Level of Protection." My conclusion? They were dumped because the people funding this process are opposed to all fishing. See Terry's post in the other thread. Terry is in favor of marine conservation, even reserves. He can't support politically and ideologically driven closures.