Quote:
|
Has anyone even pondered the financial burden and strain of enforcing this so-called closure agreement?
|
and
Quote:
|
Not that I really think any of this will be taken into account but.....how about the economic impact the closure could have upon local business?? The entire sportfishing fleet, the tackle stores, the kayak stores, the spearfishing stores, bait barges...etc..??????
|
Yes! Well, sort of.
The state spent $700,000 on a fisheries use survey - the Ecotrust maps quite a few of us filled out. Its a great tool, and at least for the sportboats and commercial guys, a real-world cost can be derived from potential closures. Unfortunately, it would have cost a lot more than $700k to estimate the on and off the water costs to the wider recreational boating and fishing economy.
The Ecotrust data is good stuff that isn't getting much attention at the RSG, except in the three proposals that deliberately minimize economic damage (your fishing reps hard at work). The three maximum conservation proposals will be analyzed and you can bet the results will predict economic armageddon. That might change the climate at the RSG; in any case, the Blue Ribbon Task Force, the committee that will recommend a network to the Fish and Game Commission, will likely take the economic impacts seriously.
Nancy Foley, the state's chief warden, estimated that the MLPA reserves will cost $40 million / year for enforcement, scientific monitoring, and public outreach. It's money the state doesn't have. This is a hot issue at the Commission. Suggested public letters will follow in a week or so.