|
Bleedem - another thing often lost in all this hoopla is that one of the chief benefits of that awfull F2F proposed by the neanderthals of MSBA and other jurrasic fishing clubs is that an area can still be closed or restricted from particular methods or destructive gear type. Just that, and here is the kicker, there will be predefined triggers that will REOPEN an area after specific goals are met - those same goals that required the closure in the first place. That the reasons for closing an area and recovering a stock to a SUSTAINABLE level are applied but the key is not thrown away. There can be a reopening of an area AFTER it's closed. It also allows sane management of a problem. A guy running his boat out to Stellwagen and R&R his 5-10 codfish, that did not hypothetically rapre the resource doesn't get lumped in with the trawl that hard hit an area.
It offers FLEXIBILITY in management and does not introduce an ADDITIONAL consortium of "Fishieres Management Regulations" into the mix.
I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for these statements and what supporting info you have to mold your thinking.
Thanks,
John Redmond
|