Del Mar Councilman Supports Map 3 - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Holy Mackerel · 10-26-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy V

Nobody wants The Monster in their back yard.

Delmar knows it, maybe the San Diego City Council will smarten up before its too late.
I know at least a few of them have stepped up, Carl DeMaio being one of them.

Exactly, they picked 3, because Map 2 places a big MPA in Del Mar. We might be better served to lobby our SD city council, Mayor to send letters to BRTF like DeMaio did for proposal 2. I sent Sherri Lightner a couple emails now, hoping she would echo her sentiments from the MLPA resolution here in SD. Still waiting for a return email.

FISHIONADO · 10-26-2009, 08:38 AM

I wonder if City Council recommendations mean anything? Are they part of the process or have they been asked by the BTRF for their opinions? I'd like for them all to support Map 2 but not sure that it even matters.

JoeBeck · 10-26-2009, 08:45 AM

The city council may be able to persuade the outcome simply by communicating the Social Economic impact to the MLPA and how San Diego can not afford the loss these closures may bring and that they don't want it in their city.

Not sure how effective it will be but probably a bit more effective than our public comments. You can see the results at laguna, a city that was very involved in communicating they wanted closures.

Seems some lobbying is needed here letters and face to face.

FISHIONADO · 10-26-2009, 08:51 AM

I don't subscribe to the economic argument. If the choice is loss of revenue or loss of species I am going to side with the species, mostly because I like to eat them. I believe Map 2 provides the right balance to conserve both.

JoeBeck · 10-26-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

I don't subscribe to the economic argument. If the choice is loss of revenue or loss of species I am going to side with the species, mostly because I like to eat them. I believe Map 2 provides the right balance to conserve both.

True and an equal if not a better point. Map 2 is the best solution all around.

10-26-2009, 08:38 AM	#2
FISHIONADO Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 698	I wonder if City Council recommendations mean anything? Are they part of the process or have they been asked by the BTRF for their opinions? I'd like for them all to support Map 2 but not sure that it even matters.

10-26-2009, 08:45 AM	#3
JoeBeck Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: San Diego Posts: 370	The city council may be able to persuade the outcome simply by communicating the Social Economic impact to the MLPA and how San Diego can not afford the loss these closures may bring and that they don't want it in their city. Not sure how effective it will be but probably a bit more effective than our public comments. You can see the results at laguna, a city that was very involved in communicating they wanted closures. Seems some lobbying is needed here letters and face to face.

10-26-2009, 08:51 AM	#4
FISHIONADO Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 698	I don't subscribe to the economic argument. If the choice is loss of revenue or loss of species I am going to side with the species, mostly because I like to eat them. I believe Map 2 provides the right balance to conserve both.