thelog.com
Comments From page 6
keep its word. This was evident at the April 13 California Fish and Game Commission, where some commissioners echoed the view of environmentalists that no promises were ever made. In fact, the president of commission stated that he didn’t expect fi shing to be restored during his lifetime. In retrospect, this stunning pro-
nouncement was not surprising. The commission is functioning with only three commissioners and two vacancies after several longstanding commission- ers resigned out of frustration. Defending hunters and anglers had become too tiresome. Ironically, it was the two recently appointed commissioners who challenged the assertion that promises were made, as if they had an institutional knowledge of the all the public hearings and stakeholder meetings. The bottom line is the state did not
recruit recreational anglers to serve on stakeholder groups to seek their advice on how best to deny them access to some of California’s fi nest fi shing, perma- nently. That would have been a none- starter. Rather, stakeholders were assured that environmental mitigation was required to protect the ocean’s natural resources, and their participation aimed to balance the interests of responsible environmental stewardship and outdoor recreation. The commission would be wise to abandon their current course of action of denying the truth, thereby enshrining the Marine Life Protection Act’s legacy as the greatest bait and switch act ever. It will only further damage their relation- ship with those who were once their partners in conserving our state’s natural resources. Marko Mlikotin, Executive Director, California Sportfi shing League
Illegal charter or passenger for hire?
Re: Coast Guard reminds boaters of the hazards of illegal passenger vessel opera- tions (April 8 issue). This article would have been much more informative if it had addressed the criteria by which the determination of “passenger for hire” is made. This is a frequent topic of discus- sion among fi shermen in the private boater community where it is common to “share costs” and concerns arise as to which costs may be permissibly shared. The conventional wisdom is that shar- ing direct, out of pocket costs (i.e. fuel, bait, food etc.) is not a problem even if the cost is spread entirely among the crew with no owner participation. The thinking is that the owner is not profi t- ing. Conversely, it may be inferred that sharing other costs, such as insurance, slip fees, boat depreciation, etc., especially where the owner does not pay a share, crosses the line. It would have been great if this article had reported the United States Coast Guard position on what is permissible and what is not. It may be that the Coast Guard won’t take a specifi c
position on that topic, and if so that fact would also be important. Lastly, there are a number of private boaters who share a ride for a fi xed fl at rate, looking suspi- ciously like an illegal charter operation. It would also have been interesting to hear whether the Coast Guard is aware of those operations and what it does to address. Traveler
Boat operator offers suggestions
Re: It’s no war zone: San Diego Bay bal- ances boating, Navy operations (April 22 issue). While “rules of the road” are important and should be adhered to, it is more important to show your intentions (intended course and speed) as early in
your encounter as possible with a large vessel of any kind. A ship’s course and speed is not optional in a narrow channel such as San Diego Harbor. Upon approach- ing when possible exaggerate your course change acknowledging their presence and your action to avoid course intersection. Hope this helps. Sam Minervini
From Our Facebook Page
Should anglers reel in sharks?
The Log: It’s a scene straight out of #Jaws, except Orca is in #Oceanside & she made
The Log • May 6 - 19, 2016 • 19
it back to shore w/ the behemoth #shark! Re: California fi shermen reel in a 55-pound shark (
khon2.com).
Tommy Fardig: As a fi sheries biologist and considering the current state of our shark populations, which are depleted to the point where recovery may be tough I have mixed feelings about such a take. Yes it’s legal, but is it necessary? It takes years for sharks to become reproductively viable so killing big sharks dramatically impacts populations. I hope they ate the shark and used every part of it. If they killed it for a trophy to bring to the dock to show how “big” of fi sherman they are then shame on them and I hope they feel like douche bags. That’s all I will say about that.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
