Posted by Demo on July 13, 2001 at 01:50:18:
In Reply to: A Step in the Right Direction posted by Eric Frasco on July 11, 2001 at 08:54:41:
"DFG decisions can only affect the nearshore out to three miles, the feds have to do the rest"
DFG has jurisdiciton on all the islands and is MPAing many areas on such islands. Read their manifesto.
When is the last time you went spearfishing "only" three miles off the beach?
All the best spearfishing on the this coast is within 1000 yards of the beach or island coast. Who cares about anything beyond that except gill netters and commercial fishermen. I don't and you don't go spearfishing 3 miles from LAND, where DFG rules and soon closes.
P.S. Your "NO TAKE" zones are usually a reaction to a problem with a particular species but they do not take into account the fact that migratory species visit these areas and can sustainably be hunter there without effect on non-migratory specie. White Sea Bass which 99.9% bubble blowers will never ever see are a perfect example. DFG wants to close Dana Pt. kelp beds and hence WSB spearfishing in the area. But those exact WSB that VISIT Dana Pt. live in some part of the year in Baja, CHannel Islands, Deep Water. Why should they be protected in the Dana Pt. "No Take Zone?" especially when the fishery is being sustained both through bag & size limits as well we human induced breeding?
The DFG solution is a knee-jerk reaction that is not based on local conditions but rather environmentalist dreams of a society that does not consume any wild resources at hand but rather fabricates everything it needs from a process that does not exist. It's a utopian ideal to think man can't exist without exploiting his environment. Sure, sustainability is possible but I don't believe the current DFG solution is precise enough to achieve sustainability.