- Messages
- 497
- Reactions
- 40
I was sending you a pm. Trlsmn
I'd take you up on the face-to-face discussion.
I'd take you up on the face-to-face discussion.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was sending you a pm. Trlsmn
I'd take you up on the face-to-face discussion.
of course, then he can take a swing at me in person. I'll be the guy in Brikenstocks and wire rimmed glasses, driving the Volvo... with PETA stickers, of course
And I'll be the one with the 18" ponytail and the wire rimmed glasses,... My car is a Toyota, but without the PETA or HSUS stickers. Birks hurt my feet.of course, I'll be the guy in Brikenstocks and wire rimmed glasses, driving the Volvo... with PETA stickers, of course
Good for you.My mind is far from made up. When I go to a hearing or meeting, I am listening. Just as I have been listening to you, for about 20 paragraphs now.
I don't recall ever hearing or reading anything that said you couldn't pass over or through a reserve or protected area. I have only ever heard of extractive practices being banned in those areas. I need to read the proposals again, clearly... happen to have a link?
Am I going to post up supporting evidence to sway some anonymous internet hothead know-it-all? No, the very act would assume that a real dialogue was possible, which it is clearly not. The links and search engines are there for anyone who wants to do the research for themselves.
and I can finally hear them because your tone isn't so caustic. Like it or not, you offend people you could effectively influence with that hard-azzed witch-hunt approach.
oh brother, I am done. Have a good life, fellas.
But since you felt it was okay to attack me sarcastically, you'll get the same in return.Since you've got it all figured out, you should have come and lined everyone out.
I have no problem with scientific study of unmolested areas, as long as it isn't set up in perpetuity, with little or no scientific study done. For each one I would require that a minimum of 100 hours of underwater study be conducted every 2(two) years. No study, no reserve. If they can't knock down 50 hours a year, they don't want or need it very bad. I still think a hard sunset clause needs to be in place, say every 7 years. The age most rockfish species (benthic or bottom dwellers, such as the blacks and blues) fish must reach for reproduction.So here's a couple questions for you:
Would you support reserves, with the caveat that they are a ten year study? Five year study?
One mile out from shore should do it. Two miles long should do it. And each one should be roughly 50/50 mix of beach and rocky shore and/or rocky bottom.What would be the minimum size reserve you think would be a viable study area?
Good question. That is why size is so important. Take the area between Newport and Depoe Bay for instance. A two mile stretch of beach/cliffs that extends out one mile should be fine. One has been chosen there, but I believe it extends out to the three mile line, like TeddyK wanted.How would you choose the location? Obviously, the same criteria that makes a good fishing area makes an ideal reserve.
Well I see you have realized the dilemma we have in our cash-strapped state economy. The proponents want extensive policing. That is one of the reasons there are "no-boat-over" provisions. Trying to police/check every boat that passes over them would be impossible. Especially if they are placed around ports.Let's say the reserves passed today as written. There isn't any infrastructure to support enforcement, patrolling, etc. except the coast guard, who already has a full time job. What do you think the policing would look like? Who would do it?
The process is moving forward. Thankfully many salt fishers have gotten involved, and helped ensure there are people on the various boards and working groups that are looking out for our interests. Even if it's only been letter writing campaigns. My issues are shared by many of these people as they actually listen to us, the fishermen/women.Do you think there is still an opportunity to shape the legislation to account for some of the issues you described above?
That arises out of the policing issues I described above. If no boats are allowed in, they don't have to worry about whether they are fishing. It's easier to police if no boats are allowed.I don't recall ever hearing or reading anything that said you couldn't pass over or through a reserve or protected area. I have only ever heard of extractive practices being banned in those areas. I need to read the proposals again, clearly... happen to have a link?
Ahem, "A CAUGHT FISH CANNOT BREED." Thankyou.........................elsullo