Posted on 08/15/2006 10:34:08 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
A network of reserves to protect California's rich array of marine wildlife moved closer to becoming a reality on Tuesday after a state panel selected a plan to put large swaths of coastal waters off-limits to fishing.
The Fish and Game Commission voted at a packed meeting in Monterey to ban both commercial and recreational fishing across more than 200 square miles between Santa Barbara and Half Moon Bay, just south of San Francisco.
The plan still must undergo a final environmental review before it goes into effect. The new protected areas likely would not become official until at least early 2007, said Bill Romanelli, a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game.
California has created various marine reserves over the years, but their boundaries and restrictions often have conflicted. The latest effort seeks to develop a systematic, statewide approach to protecting coastal habitat.
Florida and Hawaii have established similar marine protected areas.
Marine reserves, mandated by the Marine Life Protection Act of 1999, aim to restore populations of fish, crustaceans, squid and other marine life depleted by overfishing, pollution and other human activities. They are designed to safeguard key ecosystems such as kelp forests and rocky reefs rather than the more traditional approach of singling out specific species for protection.
Environmentalists said the California commission should have gone further, calling marine protected areas as important as national parks on land.
"The network is not as strong as we wanted, but we're hoping we can all work together now to protect the underwater gems of the Central Coast," said Karen Garrison, who co-directs the oceans program in San Francisco for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Fishermen, meanwhile, worried that any limits on fishing could hurt their livelihoods.
The panel considered four plans that differed mainly over how broad an area to set aside for preservation.
A plan proposed by fishermen themselves would have barred them from 5 percent of Central Coast waters. Environmentalists supported placing 13 percent under protection.
The final plan chosen by the commission would put 8 percent off limits.
Scientists believe habitats protected from fishing give fish and other wildlife a chance to grow larger and replenish their numbers.
Protected areas under the plan would include underwater canyons and coral beds near coastal landmarks like Point Lobos, Point Sur and Ano Nuevo.
Too bad they won't move closer to protecting California's rich array of preborn human life.
Thanks for clarifying that the fisheman's group was not another leftist plant. And thanks for all the background. My disgust and frustration with government comes from reading so many stories like yours. Many posters have offered similar anecdotes that have been quite telling as to what we are all up against.
I believe that your level of frustration may have eclipsed SierraWasp's disgust for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (and that's sayin' somethin'!)
Hang in there. You ain't alone!
The Chinese will get to do it first.
After posting, I went to have a look at California's Fish & Game website. I don't know if the areas listed were what is newly prohibited, or had already been "closed areas". Those listed (in my area, SLO County) do not appear that big, to me, and seem rather senseless, other than to have some result to show "something" is being done. I can think of more "prime" areas, a bit farther away from harbor entrances, that might have been better, but then again, as is said of fish, 'they all have tails' and move around, many of them, a LOT.
Tons of money spent to develop and discuss all this junk, and more additional multi-hundred thousands of dollars spent on new patrol boats, for what??? There are hardly any (commercial) fisherman left. Shoot, one just died the other day, who had become in recent years one of the "near shore" permit-only fisherman.
His death was not a fishing accident...I hear he fell off the pier, onto his boat. That may or may not be completly accurate...I haven't investigated for myself yet...
One less guy, but he was fairly active. Though he owned a boat that was about 35 ft., he did the so-called near-shore "live" market fishing, out of an aluminum skiff.
About six-nine months ago, his 35 ft.'er sunk at the dock (and was later refloated) because some idiot re-tied the dock lines in such a way that the boat was trapped by a rising tide. Then, the Fish & Game, and local Harbor patrol barred him from going onto or closely near the boat, with Fish and Game threatening him with arrest if he tried to get closer (I witnessed that part, personally), while the Harbor Department simultaneously attempted to get him to sign a paper stating that it was all "his" fault. It was a bad deal, all the way around. I do think the City has gotten stuck with the cost of raising the boat, so far.
Now he's dead, and his boat and skiff are surrounded by police tape, in impound in front of the Harbor office. He leaves behind a divorced wife, and a surviving daughter.
I'm afraid you're right, and considering that we seem to be doing our best to raise a generation of lactose intolerant, fat, lazy PC bedwetters, they'll do it right soon.
:(
That's not it.
They loan us money.
By golly, you're right! Why fight for it when you can just foreclose.
Taking advantage of collateral for borrowed money has become a feeding frenzy. It's happening all over the country, the real source of the internationalization of America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.