Posted by Finfan on April 11, 2005 at 10:40:56:
In Reply to: His position is a bit confusing posted by Elaine on April 10, 2005 at 21:27:12:
Without knowing the man, I believe he is associating the concept of "no take" as being "extreme" and therefore labeling conservation groups that believe the only way is "no take" as being "extreme conservation groups".
His viewpoints, if you review the United Anglers material in a nut shell, are basically, stop fighting the reserves as they are here to stay and concentrate on the "no-take" part of them. I think you will see that they believe, whether factually or just in perception, that "no take" is too extreme. I also believe you'll find that whether or not you agree with that thought process, United Anglers believes they can win a battle on that argument and is willing to fight that cause.
I think he's right that even recreational fishermen will support reserves as long as they have some limited element of take for recreational fishermen allowed.
The rec's don't like the commercials anymore than most of the conservationists. Even to some extent the private rec's versus the party boat rec's.
I know most believe that it was the gill net ban that have brought back the white seabass, but I believe had United Anglers not put up the money and created/backed the hatchery program in place today, we wouldn't have seen those fish return as fast as they have.
One point that can't be under estimated is the fact that it would be much better to have the rec anglers behind the MLPA's and funding restoration of habitat, rockfish, abalone, lobster populations then having them use their money to fight them. If it means having to compromise a little with the rec interest maybe that isn't a bad thing. There are a lot of dollars they represent at the table.
I'm sure I get a fair share of criticism from this, but anytime you adopt an "all or nothing" position your going to be labeled "extremists". The fact is, United Anglers is positioning as an interest willing to compromise as long as they get their interest addressed and they are doing it under the guise of being open to compromise and not fighting the reserve idea. Sounds like fairly smart politicians setting up the conservative masses for a loss.
The fishing interest is ripe to be divided on the issue, the question is whether or not the conservational interest is smart enough to use it to their advantage. Divided you conquer and probably get more reserves than ever. Undivided and organized you could find expansion of the reserves difficult and costly. And that's money that would be doing a whole lot better in structure restoration and habitat creation.
Just my read on the deal!