|Farnsworth moorrings - unintended consequences - another option|
Posted by Ken Kurtis on November 13, 2009 at 11:39:38:|
Assuming moorings pass the feasibility test . . .
There's one thing you always have to be aware of when doing anything which is sometimes referred to as The Law of Unintended Consequences. In other words, you do one thing and produce a result exactly the opposite of what you intended.
In the case of moorings at Farnsworth, it's already tricky enough to slip in there when there are fishing boats around. But, they're rarely actually "on" one of the high spots so the presence of fishing boats is not always an issue or dealbreakr (or more correctly, a divebreaker).
However . . .
Should we go to a mooring system followed by a no-anchor provision, the number of boats at the site will be limited to the number of moorings (not counting fishing boats that might drift-fish the area). So you could easily have a situation where fishing boats are using the only available moorings and any arriving dive boat has to go elsewhere (which usually means another 30-45 run to an alternate dive site).
Poltically, a "moorings reserved for dive boats" will not fly. Making Farnsworth - given the size of the new SMCA - a no-take zone likely will not fly.
But there may be another way to solve this.
I've suggested to F&G that we might want to consider language similar to this: "Hook-and-line fishing gear may not be used or deployed within the Farnsworth SMCA from any vessel that is anchored or moored."
This would still allow them to fish but would discourage them from using the mooring buoys since then they couldn't fish. F&G was semi-receptive but the trick is making this NOT seem like an anti-fishing maneuver.
Like I said, no one ever said it was easy . . .
|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.