|Re: Re: MLPA Update, BRTF guidance on proposed MPA's|
Posted by Steve Benavides on July 31, 2009 at 10:19:43:|
In Reply to: Re: MLPA Update, BRTF guidance on proposed MPA's posted by Sumit on July 31, 2009 at 06:34:00:
Yes you are misinterpreting. You should also read Ken Kurtis's post as well. I think he heard exactly what I was trying to say. In fact, Ken has been saying the same thing for at least as long as I have. "What I hear Steve saying is essentially is that if you are just now starting to pay attention to what's going on and intend to make comments and ask for changes, you're going to be fighting the inertia of a desire to reach a conclusion. It's not that you won't be listened to but, as with the Titanic, the time to give the order "Hard to port!!!" was early-on in the voyage, not as the iceberg was about to slice the hull open"
Ken you are good with words.
Actually, not a single shape has been cast in stone. Conceivably, any of the three maps which go forward could end up looking completely different by the end of the next round. I really don't think that will happen. And I honestly don't think that any particular group will be misrepresented in the process. As in the previous two iterations of this process the maps which have been forwarded by the BRTF for consideration at the Fish and game commission have represented a broad range of conservation and consumptive user interests.
The geography in Southern California is unlike the balance of the state in a number of ways. Most importantly, we have an awful lot of beaches and soft sediment as opposed to rocky cliff and bolder coastline. unfortunately, most of these shallow rocky areas happened to coincide with prominent headlands surrounded by miles of sand. And on top of that the fact that this is the most intensely used part of California and there is no question that will be difficulty.
My sense is that the final map will look similar to one of the three maps that already have made the cut because the geography points us in that direction. The major differences will be the size of the reserves and the location of those reserves along the coastline as they are moved in order to capture more habitats or two comply with the spacing guidelines dictated by the SAT.
The most effective public comment at this point will be to specifically comment on the location of those reserves which are in your neighborhood that you are familiar with. I would ask that if you object to the location of a reserve in a particular place and question you should also be prepared and should offer a solution as to where that particular reserve should be. At this point the critical question is not whether there will be reserves are not, that's already been answered. The critical question is where those reserves will be precisely located in how large they will be. Believe it or not subtle changes in boundaries can have significant effect on both the socioeconomic cost and the conservation values measured by the modeling.
|Optional Link URL:|
|Optional Link Title:|
|Optional Image URL:|
|Post Background Color:||White Black|
|Post Area Page Width:||Normal Full|
|You must type in the
scrambled text key to
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.