Posted by Chris on January 22, 2002 at 20:33:28:
In Reply to: Re: "stakeholder groups"? posted by Chuck Tribolet on January 22, 2002 at 19:28:12:
I agree that large areas are needed, but also in conjunction with reduced take.
The recent DFG actions of decreasing the sport take and increasing the commercial take of rockfish and lingcod probably will do net harm to the remaining stocks.
If reduced take is not included, the non protected areas will be hit even harder than hey are now.
If people are going to continue to consume seafood, then some take must be allowed.
The question is where.
Sport fishing has many more participants, including me, than diving will ever have.
Coastal access for sport fishing must be maintained as part of the overall plan.
Any plan that excludes all of the best coastal sport fishing locations will not fly.
However some will need to be protected.
Obvious areas to protect that were not included in the last plan include, the alpha area at San Nicolas Island, the coast off of Camp Penndelton, Vandenberg AFB, and Point Mugu since access there is already restricted by the military.
Also some provision needs to be included that allows anchoring in the lee of an island with game, even if it is part of a protected area.
Any island in which the lee side is closed, is effectively completely closed.
Unfortunately DFG has a long history of mismanagement, and too late management when it comes to our oceanic resources.
Any plan that does result will probably make all sides unhappy.
But some plan is better than none.