Posted by Brad on November 26, 2002 at 18:24:32:
In Reply to: Impending Suit Against CA DFG posted by Chris on November 26, 2002 at 06:48:16:
Mr Franko talks about heritage, grandchildren and the like, but fails to understand that the reserves are FOR the grandchildren. Those reserves will ensure that there will be fish for his grandchildren to catch.
I have watched the serial depletion of Catalina since 1978, and the only mitigating factor to the declining resident populations have been bad weather or better fishing elsewhere. I have seen no concerted effort whatsoever on the part of the rec community to stem that decline. It would be a shame if the Channel Islands were allowed to deteriorate to the point that Catalina has.
I have heard talk radio hosts (fishing shows) say quote "if the reserves go thru, it will put every halfday boat in Southern California out of business" I have heard another one say that if the reserves go thru, "you won't be able to walk on the beach with your kids" This is one of my favorite ones; there was a recent article in the LA Times where one skipper said he would have to raise his fares because of the reserves.(how does that work?) Then there were the letter(s) to the editor that said that the reserves will cost the California economy 2 Billion dollars.
When i look at the map of the reserves, i just don't see a problem that even approaches the magnitude of the rhetoric....
I don't believe the lawsuit has merit because the reserves don't prevent anyone from fishing any time they choose, it only restricts certain areas. It reminds me of the gillnet innitive; no one said those netters couldn't fish any more, only that they had to change their gear...
For the purpose of debate, lets just say that the lawsuit was successful and the reserves were eliminated. What are those people going to say about it 20 years from now? We fought the good fight and won, now the Channel Islands are just as depleted as Catalina.
Fighting against pure conservation in this day and age is fundamentally immoral because it seeks to deprive future generations of THEIR right to see and enjoy the abundance that could have been....
Post a Followup