U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Diego
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2009, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Encinitas
1,696 posts, read 3,032,096 times
Reputation: 761

Advertisements

It's Obama's fault!!

Nope, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2009, 10:33 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,884 posts, read 4,838,048 times
Reputation: 1861
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveautumn View Post
I seem to recall the tuna industry here was completely shut down a few decades ago too...
In the 80's my uncle used to work at Van Can off Miramar road which was one of the few actual nondefense related manufacturing plants in this town at the time. They made the tin cans for the local tuna fishing industry but a huge drop in fish catches meant there was no longer enough tuna to keep the canning plants open. The problem wasn't regulations, the problem was there just wasn't enough tuna.

Up until the 1970's we had a huge abalone fishery here as well and the abalone was so cheap San Diego had drive in places selling abalone burgers which was something of a regional specialty food. Unfortunately the abalone was way over fished, the population collapsed, then it got hit with a disease, and now fresh abalone sells for something like $50 a pound because there just isn't much out there. If you look at the number fish catches are down across the board on just about every species you can think of because we have over exploited everything. The single best thing we can do is create no take zones where fish populations can recover and thus provide a permanent base population which can continually replenish the unprotected areas. Of course the current proposal is likely not going to work because they're to small; lots of game fish and move miles in a day while hunting so the proposed protected areas aren't large enough to cover their whole range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 12:52 AM
 
2,724 posts, read 4,719,586 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encinitan View Post
It's Obama's fault!!

Nope, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Sounds quite good to me actually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 09:11 AM
 
Location: San Diego
17,335 posts, read 13,877,918 times
Reputation: 6144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
In the 80's my uncle used to work at Van Can off Miramar road which was one of the few actual nondefense related manufacturing plants in this town at the time. They made the tin cans for the local tuna fishing industry but a huge drop in fish catches meant there was no longer enough tuna to keep the canning plants open. The problem wasn't regulations, the problem was there just wasn't enough tuna.

Up until the 1970's we had a huge abalone fishery here as well and the abalone was so cheap San Diego had drive in places selling abalone burgers which was something of a regional specialty food. Unfortunately the abalone was way over fished, the population collapsed, then it got hit with a disease, and now fresh abalone sells for something like $50 a pound because there just isn't much out there. If you look at the number fish catches are down across the board on just about every species you can think of because we have over exploited everything. The single best thing we can do is create no take zones where fish populations can recover and thus provide a permanent base population which can continually replenish the unprotected areas. Of course the current proposal is likely not going to work because they're to small; lots of game fish and move miles in a day while hunting so the proposed protected areas aren't large enough to cover their whole range.
As you can see from that map any area that holds fish is going to be a no take zone. Those 200 yaks you see off LJ will now be in the bays driving pressure up on those fish.
Seasons, take limits and restrictions make far more sense than sealing off the entire coastline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Cary NC
548 posts, read 1,576,331 times
Reputation: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
YEAH! HOW DARE THOSE LIBERALS WANT TO PRESERVE SOMETHING FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS!

Clearly the solution is to kill all the fish now and not give them a chance to rebuild their numbers.
Look I believe in preservation. I dive for abalone which is another species that has been decimated in other parts of the world. I do agree on commercial fisherman being stopped for a while. It sucks that they are out of work but that is the risk they face and they know it. Same as airline and IT people who are also losing jobs right now. However I agree that recreational fishing should still remain open and have no problems with stricter requirements being places like catch and release etc.. Now you have a double whammy-commercial fisherman have no business and fishing tourism will decline furthering the economic strain in these tourist areas. It seems as if it is all or nothing which either means 1) Fish and game is unreasonably stupid by not finding compromise or 2) Fish and game is stupid for waiting until most of the areas are fished out and then shutting it down. At what point did they realize there was a problem and why did they not limit fishing activity earlier instead of just shutting everything down? What are we taxpayers paying them for? I agre with 1angrytaxpayer and also agree with Encinitan! It is his fault!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 05:01 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,884 posts, read 4,838,048 times
Reputation: 1861
Personally, as an avid fisherman I'd say it was #2; that Fish and Game was totally stupid and waited until a crisis to bother taking action. Of course that doesn't change the fact that we are now in crisis and commercial fishing has been decimated in this state because over fishing was allowed to continue unchecked for far too long. The long term solution is to get fish populations back up to stable levels because right now sport fishing tourism is in a deep funk. Who wants to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a deep sea fishing vacation when no one is catching anything?

These no catch areas are really just a minimum sized band aid because over all catch limits haven't been adjusted downwards and the no catch zones are to small as most fish are going to move in an out of those zones looking for food. We need much larger no catch zones which cover a large enough area so that a fish can live its whole life span in one that way we get a stable breeding population which can keep replenishing the areas where commercial and sport fishing are going to continue the failed policies of over fishing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 05:47 PM
 
190 posts, read 452,864 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
As you can see from that map any area that holds fish is going to be a no take zone. Those 200 yaks you see off LJ will now be in the bays driving pressure up on those fish.
Seasons, take limits and restrictions make far more sense than sealing off the entire coastline.
If the population is critically reaching the point of no return, then drastic stuff need to be made. No Take Zone is that drastic stuff, a step up from the take limits you are proposing.

In fact, it should be bigger so those guys you mentioned won't fish in and around the entire SoCal area until populations have recovered. They should stop commercial fishing too for at least a couple years, then evaluate and and open if stocks have recoevered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 07:04 PM
 
Location: San Diego
17,335 posts, read 13,877,918 times
Reputation: 6144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranzchic View Post
If the population is critically reaching the point of no return, then drastic stuff need to be made. No Take Zone is that drastic stuff, a step up from the take limits you are proposing.

In fact, it should be bigger so those guys you mentioned won't fish in and around the entire SoCal area until populations have recovered. They should stop commercial fishing too for at least a couple years, then evaluate and and open if stocks have recoevered.
One Commercial boat takes more in one drop than the entire Rec fleet does in a month. They will wrap all the fish in a school while private boaters only pull a few that want to bite. As far as inshore it's the same thing. The fleet of cattle cars go out twice a day to the same spots off LJ and PL and I can see how they fish out areas. They also don't throw any legal fish back while rec fishermen don't usually keep fish, especially fish like Calico Bass which are slow growers.

Again, change behavior, lower limits or create shorter seasons but don't make the area closed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 07:11 PM
 
Location: San Diego
17,335 posts, read 13,877,918 times
Reputation: 6144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranzchic View Post
If the population is critically reaching the point of no return, then drastic stuff need to be made. No Take Zone is that drastic stuff, a step up from the take limits you are proposing.

In fact, it should be bigger so those guys you mentioned won't fish in and around the entire SoCal area until populations have recovered. They should stop commercial fishing too for at least a couple years, then evaluate and and open if stocks have recoevered.
The DFG put radical seasons and regs in place years ago and the near shore waters are healthier than they've been in 30 years because of it. That is the proper approach, not shutting down the Ocean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2009, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Cary NC
548 posts, read 1,576,331 times
Reputation: 277
Maybe Obama will fund the Fisherman fund to pay for fuel where we go to Japanese waters and start stealing their fish instead of the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Diego

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:46 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top