Posted by finfan on October 29, 2002 at 11:26:15:
In Reply to: Re: Two DS's posted by Eleena Oak on October 28, 2002 at 18:52:45:
I don't recall anything in any of my posts that said I disagreed with the reserve in concept. Why do people supporting the reserves keep taking what's said and twisting it to suggest extremes? That's a rhetorical question, please don't respond.
Your comment that we want it takin away from all because we can't kill there is what is full of it! You have no basis for such a comment. Steve's point sounds to me more like along the lines of - If the reserve is the answer then why not remove anything other than nature from the reserve.
Simple fact is that nature will not react the same with man's presence as it will without man's presence (please don't take my use of the term "man's" in that phase as some attack on all the women divers of the world, it's not).
That being said; to suggest that divers, even non-hunters have no effect is just plain wrong. When a boat drops a hook in a kelp forest and removes strands of kelp when it leaves it causes damage. When a diver swims past a nest of eggs and the fin kicks near or on that nest, it causes damage, when the hook lands in the reef, it causes damage, for that matter can anyone of us say with certainty that the flash of the cameras doesn't have some impact on fish (I can't). When a photographers kneels down on the reef to snap that cute picture it causes damage. Even divers merely parting kelp to return to a boat have some impact. A diver losing any gear in an area has some impact. Maybe collectively these have less impact than a hunter, but impact none the less. I didn't realize the process discussed the degree that certain activities had or didn't have. If this is strictly an argument about what degree certain activities have on a reserve than I guess I have no argument. Wait, let me take that back. Hypothetically, if an anchor lands on a nest of hundreds or thousands of eggs has it done more damage than the hunter that let's say a hunter who takes a few fish , a few times a year from the reserve? I guess the answer would depend on the survival rate of the hatch from the nest just destroyed.
Yes, I believe hunters have an impact, but I also believe it is incidental to other more significant issues. Commercials have some blame (maybe big, but who set their limits in the first place). Let's not overlook pollution, even the effect of global warming. You see I think the answer is more than just reserves. How much has global warming changed our tidal patterns or created more periods of El Nino's and how has the El Nino's impacted the kelp forests and offshore habitat. How has development of our coastal wetlands, estuaries and bays impacted the breeding grounds for the baitfish that all of our offshore fisheries depend on so heavily for their food source. Anyone like Brad, who dismisses the impact of pollution on our bight area is absolutely clueless.
My belief is that all the reserves in the world won't solve this if we don't get all of the other factors under control that impact either habitat or food chain. I think we need to:
1 Improve habitat - that means effective pollution controls, re-planting programs, artificial reef programs, managed silt and run-off
2 Restore the food chain - that means managed commercial take of anchovies, smelt and sardines, estuary restoration, nearshore breeding ground reserves restricting development or restoration
3 Improve hatch survival rates - reserves are a start, but hatchery programs have proven effective in white seabass so why not supplement the reserves, habitat improvement and foodchain improvements will also help survival rates.
4. and yes, we need to control consumption. size, limits and seasons need to be more restrictive, especially in the areas of the commercial, but even maybe some in the sport rules.
I think the reserves will allow F&G and more so the government the ability to squirt real issues. Let's face it, have you seen any resources (of any significance) being expended to re-populate the abalone since they closed it down. I know the conservatory (a private foundation) was trying some things off Catalina, but what about F&G.
We are in the mess because as a whole (divers, fishermen, the general population have dismissed the effects of our presence on ocean resources and more importantly have never held F&G and our politicians accountable for the commercial regulations in play or maybe even the sport limits. Instead we blame the commercials for effective lobbying and label anyone who enjoys taking their own seafood as killers intent on decimating the sea.
This was never about just wanting to "kill" something. It's sad that you think that this is only what anyone arguing this point is about.