Posted by seahunt on February 19, 2004 at 06:23:15:
I have completed my analysis of California Fish and Game policy and consequence, but a question or two remains.
Note; Whenever an individual is harvesting a wild crop This applies to deer, timber and all wild crops), they tend to exhibit neolithic hunting behavior. Unfortunately, there is no off switch to the behavior. It is not a rational behavior and can lead to prblems.
On the surface, the Fish and Game has failed to accomplish almost any vestage of its supposed mission to husband the wild marine crops of California. History shows a record of over harvesting to almost total destruction of almost every commercially harvested specie. Considering that the dock limit of the last important commercial specie, squid, is greater than any yearly harvest has ever been, it shows that the policies are totally ineffective to the point of being a bad joke. There is no way that the California Fish and Game Department can claim that it has ever had a realistic or successful policy of husbanding California wild marine crops.
If the situation is similar to what is hypothesized as the reason for the increasing squid population in the Sea of Cortez (removal of all longer lived species), it says that the squid are the last component of the basis of the marine food chain that just is above the zooplankton. Their loss could be the death knell of the California marine ecology.
So why is this? Ignorance or failure of the Fish and Game scientists to offer sound policies? Perfidity and manipulation by the politicians? Rapaciousness or greed of commercial and sport fishers? It was really none of these. It was because of ignorance and because no one cared. Sure, on this board and elsewhere are many individuals with a great concern about the situation, but in the largest part, no one cared. Beaches are popular, but the California ocean is cold, remote and invisible to most people. Originally, that allowed over exploitation by fishers exhibiting natural neolithic hunting behavior. Later, it was the greed of commercial interests. Both were unchecked by anyone's concern. The Department of Fish and Game was only periferally responsible. Loosley speaking, we the people of California were all the culprits. I think you will confirm this.
My questions are about the present. The good thing is that different parties are trying to impliment Marine Reserves. What I don't understand is why the commercial and sport fishers are trying to resist them. The proof is clear that they are a great idea that will benefit all fishers. The alternative is the inevitable destruction of the wild crops that are their livelihood. Why are they resisting them? Simple short term gains combined with ignorance? What? A second question is why are the squid take limits so unrealistically high that they will almost certainly lead to destruction of what may be an incredibly critical component to the entire food chain of the entire California Coast?
Thank you for your consideration. I hope you can offer answers to these two important questions. Enjoy, Mike.
Post a Followup