It may be possible to develop a mass e-mail assault. One could develop an example and post it on the site, then members could cut and paste it to their individual e-mail format and then send it to:
MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov. That should be easier than post cards or letters.
Here is what I wrote...if people want to borrow from it they may. I think it might make some sense to ask for "proposal 0" as the first choice, to counteract the other side asking for "even more". Of course I was writing about Cove-specific proposals...if people edit that to their own interests (false cape, patrick's, etc) we could still have a united front:
_________
Presuming the group is not willing to consider re-adopting "Proposal 0", which
we could consider the control area when evaluating the other study regions to
the south, Ruby 2 appears to offer something which is the least restrictive--and
by extension "least economically harmful to the area"--to activities from shore
outward. Adding Rogers Break and Big Flat to closed areas appears (this from
the data offered on the web site from the UCSB models) to bring little additional
to the table save economic trouble to small ports like Shelter Cove.
With respect to proposed closures--whether to seaweed harvesting areas, diving
areas, fishing areas, etc--please note that the north coast protects and closes many
areas through many times during the year all on its own. The winter brings storms.
The other seasons have days on end of wind. Vast areas of the coast are already
difficult to reach or altogether inaccessible due to extreme geography. DFG regulates
seasons to such an extent that much of the year is closed to harvest for most of the
fish being protected by the MLPA. If the goal of the MLPA is to allow species "safe
spaces" to populate and thrive, then I would argue the north coast is already handling
this duty. It is arrogant to think we can do better. If, on the other hand, the goal of the
MLPA is to create vast underwater parks, then this is not stated in the MLPA
guidelines--and the lawmakers who set up the MLPA legislation should go back and
make this clear in new legislation (and suffer the electoral consequences).
I am a recreational fisherman and many of my friends are also. All of us want vibrant
and sustainable fisheries. We add many dollars to local economies where we fish.
And many of us spend lots of off time trying to help help the resource. We clean up
beaches and we teach kids to understand the magnificence of the ocean. While it is
fashionable to pit environmental groups against fisherfolk and both against tribes, I see
this as mostly a cynical trick by big money or power interests to divide potentially large
and powerful groups into small and conquerable ones.
I advocate the least restriction possible which will satisfy the requirements of the
MLPA. There are many small economies on the north coast which depend in large
part on the sustainable harvest practices and the fishing which have gone on for
generations. I think the north coast (for reasons noted above) already enjoys
substantial protection via its isolation and size which other areas do not have. To add
additional (arguably artificial) protections where they are not needed invites unintended
consequences (which humans are famous for creating) as well unnecessary hardship
for local inhabitants.
-----------
I think Ben is right--those comments have that postcard all over the place. The message is not very interesting but seeing it over and over does have an impact. If we want something more generic or shorter we could grab something else, cut this down...whatever...It would be nice to see 500 of them in the comments though.
