|
Posted by Mike on December 08, 2005 at 12:54:17:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Catalina Island and Marine Reserves posted by Dr. Bill on December 08, 2005 at 09:44:45:
Doc,
The "original intent" of the MLPA was and is terminally flawed, thats why all the hoopla. Anyone who took the time to read the MLPA and actually attended the meetings, as compared to taking others words for it because "gee, it sure sounds good", could see those gapping flaws, of which there are many. I'll point out just one, but, it is a hugh one. According to the original maps of the proposed MLPA zones virtually every Channel Island, 99% of the coast and every charted 'shallow water reef' was to be included in the MLPA AND WOULD HAVE EITHER ELIMINATED OR STRICTLY LIMITED ALL TAKE. Ok, lets says that happened for the sake of arguement. No take=No fishing allowed. First, lets eliminate that revenue stream which historically used those areas. No more license fee's, no more pittman roos, all gone. Where do get the money to hire wardens, biologists, patrols to enforce the MLPA, funds for managing the MLPA??? Where was that in your "scientific approach?". I have a copy of the MLPA right here, please tell me what chapter, what page I can find the answer! Opps. sorry, it doesn't exist. How about we share with everyone what was proposed as an ammendment after that flaw was pointed out. You guessed it...licensing "users" of the resource. Much like the "Adventure Pass" which is required to enter most southern california forests. Ofcourse, the MLPA users fee would need to be quite substantial compared to a fishing license because the estimates of the number of users fees were infinatesimal compared to the numbers of displaced fishing license fees. For divers your $100 boat dive would be in the hundreds, likely several hundreds. Surfers, kayakers, even beach go'ers were cited as possible revenue sources to replace the lost revenue. If anyone doubts what I'm writing you really need to read the MLPA AND addendums and attend an MLPA meeting...or ten
Doc, you stated previously that the politics got in the way of the MLPA. Is this what you meant? Science never works in the darkness of half truths. Time to come clean on all aspects of the MLPA, not just the warm fuzzy ones.
Mike
|
