02-09-2002, 07:11 PM
A couple things come to mind:<br>The statement below:<br><br><i>Of the 1,000 likely voters contacted by telephone last month as part of the poll, 69% said they favored "fully protected areas" even if that meant "you may no longer be able to fish in one of your favorite places.</i><br><br><b>If this was conducted anything like the Scientific and statistical survey, It would not surprise me if the phone surveyors were asking: would you prefer to rape the oceans resources or preserve the natural resources. In order for surveys to mean anything they have to be impartially presented. I am for preservation (everyone is) the real question is do we do it without regard for the people who enjoy (and support through fishing lic. sales and other means) the sport. The other key question is can't the desired results be achieved without effecting sport fishing. The answer is with proper regulation of bag limits and regulations. YES</b><br><br><i>A panel of scientists believes that closing 30% to 50% of the waters is needed to cover all types of underwater habitat so that the widest array of marine life can hide from hooks and nets long enough to regenerate their numbers.</i><br><br><b>These scientists were employed by the advocates for these bills and given controlled circumstances in which to derive their conclusions. When asked if sport fishing would effect the ability to achieve the desired results of the reserve the scientists answered "it wouldn't help" this implies to me the answer is either "I don't know" or "no, but we were precluded from factoring this into the survey" This is why we all need to join and support the groups that defend our rights. This way they can afford to hire scientists to come up with solutions that will effect the same result (preserve and replenish our natural resources) but not threaten our ability to fish. There is solutions that will work that don't ban fishing. The scientists did also state that preserves work for this. The difference between a preserve and a reserve as I understand it is: preserve restrict when, where and how much game can be taken in a given area where a reserve prohibits the use of that area period.</b><br><br><i>State law required the plan to be finalized this year. But the fishing lobby stirred up such a political storm that Fish and Game officials coaxed the Legislature to postpone the deadline for more than a year to allow for meetings with local fishermen on the size and location of each reserve.</i><br><br><b>This is stated like it is a bad thing, the interesting fact is that California fisherman contributed more than $48 million to the dfg in 2000 largely in part for the preservation of natural resources, in contrast I wonder just how much these advocates of the closures contributed?</b><br><br>[laugh] How about a good laugh?<br><A HREF="http://www.bigfishtackle.com/comics.htm " target="_new">http://www.bigfishtackle.com/comics.htm </A> <br><br>Mike H