I Am Curious.... - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

SeaEagle_1 · 10-23-2011, 09:15 AM

i think we are all in agreement that the science behind the MLPA is flawed and skewed against us and in favor of the environmentalists'. and that it is this so called "science" that has led to our current situation. so i am curious about something; why don't we, as a group, pool our resources into having a 3rd party actually do the science and use that in the law suite to show that the science was indeed flawed? or at least to show that the science is in conflict with one another and to stall the implementation till a final OPEN study can be preformed by a company agreed to by both parties?

so what do you guys think? is this whole thing a joke and no report regardless of what it says will have any affect? or is it a great idea that could change the whole outcome? or something in between? i have no idea. but its a thought.

GregAndrew · 10-23-2011, 03:32 PM

No report, no matter what it found, would stop this runaway steam roller. Their "Science" guys were making crap up on the fly during the entire process, which was considered gospel as soon as it left their lips. They said that WSB were in decline, and invented "persistent kelp" to allow groups to meet their kelp requirements by taking more area. Just a couple of numerous things.

T Bone · 10-24-2011, 08:15 AM

Dont forget the sealions are starving due to lack of bait.

And the sharks are starving due to lack of sealions.

Jimm H · 10-24-2011, 08:24 AM

...you wouldn't agree to any more delays or studies; you've already won. So why would they?

The only actiuons left are thru the courts. We as a group were at a disadvantage from the start because the exclusionists... er, conservationists on the other side of the issue were better organized, better fiunded, and had a better sounding argument for the casual observer: "Save the oceans, save the planet, save the whales,..." Our argument has essentially been, "We have the right to fish."

Their argument is "caring" while ours sounds "selfish." (to the uncommitted public at large). Ours was a bad position to defend, and we really didn't fully understand our enemy.

DanaPT · 10-24-2011, 08:45 AM

after reading your post, she might be right.

10-23-2011, 09:15 AM	#1
SeaEagle_1 Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Santa Ana/But moving to Elsinore Posts: 32	I Am Curious.... i think we are all in agreement that the science behind the MLPA is flawed and skewed against us and in favor of the environmentalists'. and that it is this so called "science" that has led to our current situation. so i am curious about something; why don't we, as a group, pool our resources into having a 3rd party actually do the science and use that in the law suite to show that the science was indeed flawed? or at least to show that the science is in conflict with one another and to stall the implementation till a final OPEN study can be preformed by a company agreed to by both parties? so what do you guys think? is this whole thing a joke and no report regardless of what it says will have any affect? or is it a great idea that could change the whole outcome? or something in between? i have no idea. but its a thought.

10-24-2011, 08:15 AM	#3
T Bone Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Redlands CA Posts: 871	Dont forget the sealions are starving due to lack of bait. And the sharks are starving due to lack of sealions. __________________ Barachit Baralah,Elohim-In the beginning,God-Genesis 1:1 "Who among you,if your son asked for a fish would give them a serpent " Jesus Matt. 7:10

10-24-2011, 08:24 AM	#4
Jimm H Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Rancho Bernardo-San Diego Posts: 117	If you were Pro Closure... ...you wouldn't agree to any more delays or studies; you've already won. So why would they? The only actiuons left are thru the courts. We as a group were at a disadvantage from the start because the exclusionists... er, conservationists on the other side of the issue were better organized, better fiunded, and had a better sounding argument for the casual observer: "Save the oceans, save the planet, save the whales,..." Our argument has essentially been, "We have the right to fish." Their argument is "caring" while ours sounds "selfish." (to the uncommitted public at large). Ours was a bad position to defend, and we really didn't fully understand our enemy. __________________ "Back in the day, we.... " Last edited by Jimm H; 10-31-2011 at 11:22 AM.

10-24-2011, 08:45 AM	#5
DanaPT Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: South OC Posts: 1,605	my wife thinks i'm selfish too. after reading your post, she might be right. Last edited by DanaPT; 10-24-2011 at 08:46 AM. Reason: grammer- doh

10-23-2011, 03:32 PM	#2
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	No report, no matter what it found, would stop this runaway steam roller. Their "Science" guys were making crap up on the fly during the entire process, which was considered gospel as soon as it left their lips. They said that WSB were in decline, and invented "persistent kelp" to allow groups to meet their kelp requirements by taking more area. Just a couple of numerous things.