Posted by Steve on November 04, 2002 at 08:12:38:
In Reply to: Gad Zooks posted by seahunt on November 03, 2002 at 23:45:32:
"GRATIFICATION! It's not about gratification or happiness for a fish. It's about survival in one of the most dynamic, challenging ecologies that exist. It's about food, shelter, a mate and not getting eaten before those other things. That's why fish ignore divers."
Fish don't ignore divers! Some fish remain still and many flee the area or move away from divers. The MLPA's is "about survival in one of the most dynamic, challenging ecologies that exist". And to "maximize its potential for reproduction" the MLPA's should be off limits at least in the beginning so we can see if it's going to work. It about species survival and I really don't care if you get to take a picture. I care that the food chain that is being depleted is restored.
.
"The Yukon does get anchors on it and they do some damage,"
I didn't realize that. I assumed while I was exploring that a boat wouldn't pull up and drop the hook on my head.
>We could talk about the difference in reef
>quality from the front side of Catalina against
>an outer island reef.
"Huh? What's the difference in terms of what this discussion is about. That is hunting."
No, this discusion is about as aspects of diving and all collateral damage associated with that activity.
"Look, give it up.
You have no facts or logic to back up your claims that site seeing divers would have a significant, let alone noticable negative effect on the reserves. This includes their anchors. Your few examples don't support your position."
I can only hope that there aren't many people that feel the way you do and want to exploit or capitalize on the MLPA's for their own personal gluttony.
There is a large ocean out there. Why is it so hard for you to agree that setting aside some area from our indulgence or exploitation is a bad idea in preserve the beauty we all love?