|
I am somewhat defending the management and the scientists. I am in favor of MPAs when they are based in science and when there are clearly necessary, with clearly defineable, pre-determined milestones that will automatically be triggered when the goal is met followed by measured and sustainable management practices. I do not feel that areas should be permanatly closed to the public, especially those that would be addressed at a state level which means areas from the high tide mark to the EEZ at three miles. If science says we must close the Cape Cod Canal to achieve a certain goal, then we close the canal, but it is done for scientific reasons and once the goal has been met it is reopened.
What I feel is wrong is that many of the people appointed to these commissions want to close permenantly areas to fishing. This is not a user access or allocation issue, and it is no longer a fishery management "tool" but a tool of denial. A usergroup denial tool. That is not based on science but based on policy and often policy of usergroups that chose to deny access or resources to other usergroups. That is where I feel it is wrong...
This is one main reason I support the RFA and other clubs work on the Freedom to Fish initiative, it allows for MPAs to be used as a tool when science determines it is necessary but not to be used as a tool of policy. Major difference between the two. And if science is used correctly in conjunction with effective fisheries management, MPAs will not be needed to create or maintain a sustainable fishery.
And yes, a license is coming to a state near you, unfortunately politicians have a habit to pickpocket the funds and entities that are supposed to be supported by those licenses. Mitt tried to pull a fast one and got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, this is the only reason some funds were restored - he got caught...
|
Threaded Mode