![]() |
|
Home | Forum | Online Store | Information | LJ Webcam | Gallery | Register | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 370
|
The city council may be able to persuade the outcome simply by communicating the Social Economic impact to the MLPA and how San Diego can not afford the loss these closures may bring and that they don't want it in their city.
Not sure how effective it will be but probably a bit more effective than our public comments. You can see the results at laguna, a city that was very involved in communicating they wanted closures. Seems some lobbying is needed here letters and face to face. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 698
|
I don't subscribe to the economic argument. If the choice is loss of revenue or loss of species I am going to side with the species, mostly because I like to eat them. I believe Map 2 provides the right balance to conserve both.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 370
|
True and an equal if not a better point. Map 2 is the best solution all around.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|