CDFG

[Hunters Pa]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

After all this researching, i never want to see this case law again

I am surprised that the anglers who stood up were able to stop MLPA from taking everything,
this is how much power they have to protect the fish.

MLPA wasn't about protecting fish. It was about rich Malibu residents not wanting to have to see people fishing in their view. It was about rich corporations trying to ease their social conscience for past transgressions (Packard). It was about Laguna residents trying to restrict more non-residents' activities to make it less attractive to come to THEIR beach (yeah, protecting the "natural state"? How much SAND do they truck in to cover up what is TRULY the natural state of that coastline?). It was about animal rights activists trying to stop the "killing of ocean-puppies". It was about Surfrider taking it out on fishermen that there have been conflicts around piers.

If it was about the fish then someone should tell the fish to stay in the MLPA. What's that? They migrate out? Hmm, doesn't fit the "science" presented.

Yeah it was painful to watch the process proceed according to the bought and paid for commission.

[wiredantz]

BLAST FROM THE PAST


One of my friends just pointed out, that the supreme court cases they gave me, never addressed the issue if the fishing license was deemed appropriate for the protection of fish.... the only thing that was determined was that that its not an absolute right!!!!

AND IM NOT FISHING FOR PROFIT!!!!!!!!!




I emailed DFG , i want to know what the money for the ocean enhancement stamp is used for, and how the money for the fishing licenses are distributed.



I have a right to know how these fish are being protected if they want to use that excuse in court!