Had dinner with some of the fellows from allcoast (hawk, dms, linglover, and others). Said hey to Marco as he walked by. Brian #2 accompanied me to the meeting. After dinner the $hit started flyin. At the meeting, the agenda was to be a brief general comment/question and answer period at the beginning, and then we would break up and go sit at tables in smaller groups and write things down on big sheets of paper which would then be consolidated down to 4 or 5 things to be read to the group. All of our thoughts that were written on the paper were to be written down on normal sized paper, later, by the committee (MRWGS, I believe) and forwarded to the next committee for review. So, the general comment period commensed. Hawk asked how many people there were recreational fishermen. About 70% of about the 400 people there raised their hands. A GREAT turnout. As I understand most of the time it's 3 tree huggers to every fisherman. One commercial guy made some good points, causing a little bit of a ruckus. Later on somebody asked how many people are for 0 closures, period. More people raised their hands, probably about 80% of the crowd. Many standing up, raising both hands. Applause followed. Many cheap shots were thrown, mostly directed toward the enviros, but eventually we broke up into the small groups. My group consisted of moondoggie (Marco) who'd been there all day, Skip of I forget which one, but some spearfishing organization, a commercial squidder, a commercial urchin lady (or wife, or something) and a biologists wife, and another recreational guy, along with our "moderator" who was a member of the committee and was supposed to keep things civil and what not. We went around and introduced ourselves, and made our initial points and let out some steam. Marco, Skip, the other rec. guy, and myself were the three solid guys who pretty much wanted nothing of these closures. The commercial squid guy and the urchin lady were pretty much up there, but they had some weird ideas that kind of contradicted themselves. The biologist's wife was the only one who wasn't really strongly against the closures, but she wasn't 100% for them either. I thought our group was a success. We pretty much decided that closures are not necessary, and we want nothing of them. There are other ways of handling the issue at hand and by setting up complete closed areas for all species, it will do more bad that good, especially economically. Most of the other groups had pretty much the same consensus. The only thing I didn't like was that the committee pretty much forced everyone to pick one of their 4 bullshit proposals, and only 1 of the 4. No making up your own, or anything. Well, by federal law people have the right to say "E" none of the above. The committee failed to mention that to the crowd and most people I think had the impression that they had to pick one of the 4. Therefore a lot of guys chose D (8% closure) as a compromise. I think many people were under the impression that they had to settle for something, but we can still fight harder than ever. If we choose D, we'll get C. If we choose C we'll get B. If we choose, stick your proposals up your tree hugging @$$, we'll get D. So, in my opinion now, more than ever, is the time to say HELL NO. Ok, now, here's just some of my thoughts on the issue-

I don't think closures are necessary at this point. They should be used as a LAST RESORT. Complete closures to all species is not even an option right now, and should not even be considered. There is a goal here, and a consequence. The goal is to preserve a certain species, or group of fish. The consequence is economic downfall for commercial fishermen, sportfishing landings, private boaters, boat dealers, tackle shops, etc. A 50% closure WOULD drive people out of business, namely the commercial guys. This will not work. An 8% closure will fail to conserve the intended fish, since it doesn't conserve enough. However, anything more than about 8% will cause similar economic effects as anything higher. So, for these reasons, I don't think complete closures should even be considered at this point. I think a much more logical, effective, and efficient solution would be to install slot limits on the species which actually need conserving, along with stricter regualtions, species specific closures, hatcheries and/or artificial reefs. You think that's gonna cost a lot??? You bet. You think it's gonna cost a lot to set up and enforce these closure zones??? You bet. So, financing is of equal importance in both situations. Situation #2 is just more realistic. Another thing is migratory species, especially since most of them are in NO NEED for immediate conservation efforts. For example, the white seabass does not need any stricter conservation efforts right now. The bag limits and size limits are right now target. I'd like to see a 30" limit, but that's not very important. With the complete closures, you won't be able to fish for white seabass, even though they are in absolutely no need of conservation. By denying fishermen of fishing for fish which do not need protecting, it will keep people from making money, FOR NO REASON. The ONLY reason these enviro wackos want reserves is because it's POLITICALLY correct. A complete closure looks real good on paper. It gives you the idea of, oh, nobody can fish there, that must be helping the environments soooo much. And sure, it is, I'm not denying that, but it's also hurting the people soooooooo much (notice the 4 o's to 8 o's :-)). Complete closures ARE an excellent way of preserving nature, however, in this situation, they are not an option. The economy of this area depends too heavily on these HEALTHY fisheries to close them for no reason. Those of you who know me, or read my posts, know that I am by no means anti-conservation. I catch and release a larger percentage of my fish, and all of my bass. I have no problems with conserving fisheries, but what pisses me off is that people want to close fisheries which don't need closing, and by using another conservation method can easily be avoided!!! But they're stuck on themselves and their pot smoking views that NATURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE. That's the bottom line. A complete closure of any kind in this area, of any considerable size, to all species within that area, will effect people's income. It just annoys me that all of this BS can so easily be avoided if these environmental wackos will wake up and look at what the hell they're doing. We WANT to conserve the environment. We're all for it, but this method is not the way to do it. Please guys, I know a lot of you couldn't make it to the meeting, but the least you can do is state your position and what you want to happen by emailing these folks:
anne.walton@noaa.gov
sean.hastings@noaa.gov
michael.murray@noaa.gov
-Brian