Posted by seahunt on February 07, 2002 at 21:39:53:
In Reply to: MLPA: Proposed change in Fish & Game Regulations posted by Chris on February 07, 2002 at 03:36:21:
***However, they do not seem to have any plan in place to reduce commercial take. Without reduced limits for commercial take, the areas outside of the protection areas will be hit even harder and the desired fisheries recovery will be delayed, or not happen. I see this as a key flaw in the plan.****
Actually, that may not be so. The remarkable
thing about the reserves is that they actually
work. They benefit commercial and sport fisher
alike. That's not to say that the commercial
fishers won't continue their habit of trying to
kill off everything, but the reserves have worked
where they were established. Also, I would expect
the commercial fishers to use any and every
excuse to bar competition from sport fishers,
including using the reserves as an excuse, but
that is to be expected from them. My studies may
be a bit obscure, but I think it is true that the
fishers are demonstrating noelithic hunting
behavior and it must be understood as such. It is
not based on logic or on survival of the wild
crop to the next generation. It is a primitive
behavior that cannot be sustained when done at a
commercial level.
A wild crop can be:
Unexploited
Underexploited
Exploited to maintenance level
Over exploited to reduction in stocks
Over exploited to destruction
Look at history. In California it is a history
of exploitation to destruction of the wild crop,
by commercial fishers. What has changed? Nothing.
There must be dock limits on commercial fishers to
prevent destruction of the entire crop. I've
studied it. I've been diving a long time and I've
seen it with my own eyes.
Believe me though. We looked and we knew we
didn't have an answer. Then came the experiments
with the no take reserves. It worked. It worked
well enough to stop the inexortable destruction
that all observers and researchers saw. All
fishers should support the reserves.
Enjoy the diving, seahunt