A good start

[Arnaud]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...es/california/northern_california/7697991.htm

I know we may have bigger short term problems, but this seems like really bad news for the future. And I really don't understand why it costs anything to declare an area a no-fish zone.

 

[LowTide]

I read that and was pretty upset too. We can all thank the man Arnold Schwarzenegger for helping us out here. I guess he 'terminated' that project too.

The only thing I can think of that would cost money, would be to police the areas that would be a reserve. They have a hard time policing the area they have now which is less than 1% of the waters instead of 20%.

 

[Arnaud]

Sure, enforcement is a big issue, but what would be the damage in changing the status of these areas to no-fish zones? Apparently, the IRS only audits 1% of the tax paying population. That doesn't void the principle of an income tax...

 

[JHMoore]

And I really don't understand why it costs anything to declare an area a no-fish zone.

Simple answer: politics

Longer answer: the recreational fishing lobbyists whined, jumped up and down, stomped their feet and screamed a lot when the initial draft plans for siting the MPAs were floated a couple years ago. DFG didn't have the backbone to tell them to stop behaving like babies, so they caved and created a monster user group representative consensus-based process for siting the MPAs.

Processes like these require huge amounts of staff time... and to do it right you have to hire an outside neutral mediation service to run the thing. These folks are expensive. And when you've got a monster process (seven user groups across the state, each with it's own support needs), the cost goes up and up.

None of this deals with the cost of implementing the MPAs, just the cost of running the process of fighting about where to site the MPAs. Implementation costs would another matter and would vary a lot according to how you planned to enforce the regulations.

 

[Arnaud]

So much for not giving up to the "special interests"...

 

[drbill]

MERDE! I hadn't heard that. Wonder how much it will cost to move to a country that REALLY supports marine conservation. Can anyone say BONAIRE? Maybe Costa Rica?

This is a tremendous disappointment. A society which can spend BILLIONS to invade a country (or should I say countries?) to ensure oil but has to cut spending for education and environmental protection.

We are so short-sighted, and so disappointing as a society. Good thing there are individuals who still count, like most of my dive community friends.

I think it's Miller time (or better yet, a bottle of sake to drown my disappointment in). Oh wait, I'm diving tomorrow.

Dr. Bill

 

[OCdiving Deb]

....is very appropriate Dr Bill.

MERDE! I hadn't heard that. Wonder how much it will cost to move to a country that REALLY supports marine conservation. Can anyone say BONAIRE? Maybe Costa Rica?

This is a tremendous disappointment. A society which can spend BILLIONS to invade a country (or should I say countries?) to ensure oil but has to cut spending for education and environmental protection.

We are so short-sighted, and so disappointing as a society. Good thing there are individuals who still count, like most of my dive community friends.

Dr. Bill

 

[Arnaud]

And mine isn't?

 

[OCdiving Deb]

And mine isn't?

Don't worry Monsieur Arnaud! I certainly do not consider you foie gras! Thanks for posting this article. We all need to know what is happening with our marine resources. Merci!