Posted by John M. on February 09, 2004 at 08:10:23:
In Reply to: Perspective posted by average jane on February 08, 2004 at 16:19:06:
"But the point is there is no reason that zero recreational take in MLP areas is absolutely necessary."
That's a much touted opinion of rec fishing lobbyists which isn't particularly backed up by anything other than wishful thinking. Contrary to the smoke which has been blown up everyone's rear ends by the lobbyists, there's a large body of science on these topics.
"Zero commercial take in a MLP area is a huge benefit."
Yep. Absolutely. We can all agree on that.
"Extending it to the recreational take does not give you utopia. It may get you there somewhat sooner but at what cost to the local economy?"
WHAT COST to the economy?!? These arguments are such complete and utter BS. EVEN IF you completely shut down the CPFV fishery (which no one is suggesting, by the way), the cost to the economy is complete peanuts compared to anything else which has happened to the California economy in recent years. It'd hardly even be a blip on the radar.
And the simple fact is that shutting down the CPFV fishery won't happen. Look at the Channel Islands and all the whining which went on there. Something on the order of 87% of those waters are still open to fishing. WHAT ECONOMIC IMPACT???
"The DFG has the regulatory authority to throttle consumption statewide and has done so effectively for several species."
By what measure is it EFFECTIVE to completely close or nearly completely close a fishery once you've aw, gee, shucks, discovered that there aren't any left of a species????
"and let the rest of us go diving in harmony."
Sure... for the most part. Breathhold spearfishing has very little impact compared to pretty much everything else. (Except for the idiots who do things like bring up the monster male sheephead, for example.)