Posted by Chuck Tribolet on April 17, 2009 at 23:48:07:|
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My thoughts on marine protected areas posted by Commonsense on April 17, 2009 at 14:27:20:
The MPA isn't about saving the salmon. That's a problem that
happening shoreside and MAYBE too much take. When the the difference
in size and abundancy of rockfish is stunning between Pt. Lobos
State Reserve (protected since 197something) and very similar
habitat a mile away (or anywhere else in Monterey or Carmel
Bays), it's really clear that reserves work.
And the reserves give the nonconsumptives a place to see the
Because the regulations states that diving (and boating (even with
stowed fishing gear and catch), and anchoring) are legal in reserves. I
personally consider that my contribution. There was a two-part
meeting in Monterey a couple of years ago. The first part ran till
about 7pm and was well-attended by all sides. Then almost everybody
split. The second part was to kick off the writing of the regs
for the Central Coast region. I stuck around and made a short
speech that the regs needed to specifically address nonconsumptive
activities, and transit by consumptives. I was actually really
surprised when exactly the same language ended up in the regs.
I got home about 11 pm with a bag of Cheetos for dinner (I'd
been there since about 8 am).
What made me stick around? The Big Creek Reserve problem. The
original Big Creek Reserve was passed by the voters a number
of years ago. The Attorney General interpreted that as banning
just about anything in the reserve, even though that wasn't
in what the voters passed. I wanted to close the loop hole.
I guess it worked.