Posted by Finfan on April 11, 2005 at 12:08:00:
In Reply to: Where is the money? posted by Elaine on April 11, 2005 at 11:02:33:
Elaine,
I'm not sure you will ever get them to support funding "no take" areas if every reserve is "no take". But you might get them to do some if it was a mix, as this guy wants, of some limited rec take (he uses some other words "light ecological footprint." It still means "rec take")and "no take".
As far as why won't the commercials get behind it. It's a culture thing and they (for the most part) can't see beyond the attack it represents on their way of making a living. Explaning the logic of more fish means more for everyone just doesn't seem to set in. Even though the rec's don't make their living from it, the culture of take is in the blood, that's why they will fight tooth and nails against "no take" zones.
And let's face it, how strong really would the conservation interest be if they were also being told they wouldn't have access to the areas to do what they want. How strong would you individually really be behind the reserves if the idea was divers/ photographers couldn't go into the reserve either. Do you believe the dive community would have been as strong advocates had that been the case. Had they been told that the government thinks it's n the best interest of teh fish not to have flashes going off and divers around them. I think we know the answer.
Whether you by the reserve argument or not, regardless of what side you stand on, each side is basically thinking of themselves and their interests. Arguments are carefully scripted to sound like were protecting the future, our kids rights, our right to gather food, our right to make a living. In the end we are for or against based on our personal wants/desires.
Surprisingly, you would have thought that more fishes is good for all. So why has it been each side so oppossed to the other. I think it is because of the pure "no take" design. Maybe things are desperate enough that "no take" is the answer. I just don't think anyone will ever get United Anglers or teh commercials to buy that argument.
Given the political strength that rec fishermen have and the resources they can muster it would be wise to have them for reserves then battling against them.
Plus, I'll give you one of the strongest arguments they have. Frontside of Catalina. Banned for commercial fishing and lobstering and the entire front is thriving. Even the areas not protected by no-take reserves and open to rec fishing. Rec fishing and diving can co-exist if positions would just start to bend towards each other a little. If that happens then money used to fight the reserve concepts could be used productively to help reserves and re-populate those areas.