Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge - View Single Post

TCS · 12-11-2009, 12:12 PM

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to provide input to the Fish and Game Commission on the proposals submitted by the BRTF to create new Marine Protected Areas in Southern California. I appreciate that the Fish and Game Commission is welcoming public comment and is handling this process with transparency. My interested in this issue is based on my concern for the environment and my participation in the sport of kayak fishing. I paddle my kayak out into the waters off La Jolla to fish several times per month, often together with one of my children.

I share the goal of preserving our marine environment and follow the regulations established by the Fish and Game Commission to the letter. I also release most of the fish I catch and only keep fish for consumption occasionally. My view is that fishing in this manner, which is typical of sport fishermen in this area, is a sustainable and balanced use of our natural resources. If the scientists within the Department of Fish and Game were to conclude that any species of fish were threatened by this practice and were to change the limits or seasons for that species, I would respectfully adhere to the new rule without questioning it. I have always been confident that the Department of Fish and Game balances our right to fish with the need to protect our marine environment when creating new regulations.

I have followed the MLPA South Coast process carefully, and am very concerned that this historical approach of allowing fishing as much as possible while protecting the marine environment was not employed in this process. The MLPA process has been funded and dominated by interest groups whose starting point is that harvesting any natural resource, whether it be timber, minerals, land animals, or marine resources, is fundamentally wrong. Of course the people who hold and advocate those beliefs are free to do so, but it is not appropriate to have that philosophy be the driving force behind new fishing regulations. This unfortunate fact has seriously compromised the integrity of this process and the resulting proposal.

Ideally, at this stage in the process, the proposal before you would be a good compromise that resulted from honest negotiation and valid scientific assessments, and which took the needs of all stakeholders into account. If that were true, the Fish and Game Commission would be in a position to try and fund the proposal and consider approving it with little or no change. Unfortunately, that ideal outcome is not what happened. The proposal before you is not valid for the reasons stated above.

The root of this problem is that the process was funded and dominated by a powerful interest group and the only good solution is to start over. In our democracy, if an election were found to be compromised we would have a new election, even though that is costly and disruptive. The principle is the same.

Thank you for considering my comments.

12-11-2009, 12:12 PM	#9
TCS Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 478	Here is what I wrote to DFG Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to provide input to the Fish and Game Commission on the proposals submitted by the BRTF to create new Marine Protected Areas in Southern California. I appreciate that the Fish and Game Commission is welcoming public comment and is handling this process with transparency. My interested in this issue is based on my concern for the environment and my participation in the sport of kayak fishing. I paddle my kayak out into the waters off La Jolla to fish several times per month, often together with one of my children. I share the goal of preserving our marine environment and follow the regulations established by the Fish and Game Commission to the letter. I also release most of the fish I catch and only keep fish for consumption occasionally. My view is that fishing in this manner, which is typical of sport fishermen in this area, is a sustainable and balanced use of our natural resources. If the scientists within the Department of Fish and Game were to conclude that any species of fish were threatened by this practice and were to change the limits or seasons for that species, I would respectfully adhere to the new rule without questioning it. I have always been confident that the Department of Fish and Game balances our right to fish with the need to protect our marine environment when creating new regulations. I have followed the MLPA South Coast process carefully, and am very concerned that this historical approach of allowing fishing as much as possible while protecting the marine environment was not employed in this process. The MLPA process has been funded and dominated by interest groups whose starting point is that harvesting any natural resource, whether it be timber, minerals, land animals, or marine resources, is fundamentally wrong. Of course the people who hold and advocate those beliefs are free to do so, but it is not appropriate to have that philosophy be the driving force behind new fishing regulations. This unfortunate fact has seriously compromised the integrity of this process and the resulting proposal. Ideally, at this stage in the process, the proposal before you would be a good compromise that resulted from honest negotiation and valid scientific assessments, and which took the needs of all stakeholders into account. If that were true, the Fish and Game Commission would be in a position to try and fund the proposal and consider approving it with little or no change. Unfortunately, that ideal outcome is not what happened. The proposal before you is not valid for the reasons stated above. The root of this problem is that the process was funded and dominated by a powerful interest group and the only good solution is to start over. In our democracy, if an election were found to be compromised we would have a new election, even though that is costly and disruptive. The principle is the same. Thank you for considering my comments.