Of course it is politically correct and it is our responsibility to preserve a healthy balance of nature as much as possible. I think everybody, except maybe the commercial fishing industry, is in agreement that certain ecosystems are more sensitive than others and need more stringent protective management programs. But how far do you take it? There is a push for the proposed marine sanctuary off Point Dume.
A lot of residents who don’t fish or dive or scuba are jumping on the bandwagon to create an “Underwater Yellowstone,” which is fine and dandy for people who only gaze out at the sea and who would rather buy commercially caught seafood at the store instead of catching it themselves. But for others who take the time to catch a meal first-hand, there could be big changes ahead. A valid debate will continue to create turbulent waters as the few local fishermen that I know who fish responsibly will insist that they don’t have the negative impact on the local sea life that some think. So here is my question for the advocates of the marine sanctuary if it is put in place.
Since the marine enforcement will be paid for by taxpayers to operate and manage, would you still be a devoted, dedicated advocate knowing that the taxpayers would want to visit their “Yellowstone by the Sea” and could access the taxpayer-paid preserve by the opening up of the Zumirez, Wildlife and Grayfox gates to the public, compliments of the Coastal Commission who would love nothing more than to open more beach access to the public?
As a territorial, selfish snobby Malibu surfer I would not want to see that. Let’s start with zoning out the commercial fishing boats first before throwing out the baby with the bath water and preserve that corny sounding logo, “Malibu, a way of life.”
Steve Woods