White Angel
Junior Nomad
Posts: 57
Registered: 2-25-2005
Location: Danvers, Mass
Member Is Offline
|
|
NRDC-San Ignacio
I've been contacted by NRDC to rejoin them (I'd sent some 'save the whales' money in the past until I discovered how little was actually used to help
out in San Iggy) in their campaign to buy up the development rights to a million acres surrounding the lagoon. This all sounds pretty good when they
talk about blocking hi-rise hotels and condos; but I've never been too worried about their main villian-the ESSA saltworks. Seems to me the saltworks
in Guerro provide a boost to the local economy and doesn't appear to bother the whales any. Do any of you who are closer to the issue have any
thoughts on NRDC vs ESSA?
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
Who is NRDC
|
|
|
Keri
Super Nomad
Posts: 1393
Registered: 10-31-2002
Location: La Mision, Baja Norte
Member Is Offline
Mood: muy contento
|
|
hey grover, That's cool
never thought of using it before. Thanks for the tip,k
|
|
|
bajajudy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6886
Registered: 10-4-2004
Location: San Jose del Cabo,BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Grover,
Netscape does the same thing.
Sorry Angel
I cant help you with your question and after looking at some of the conservation websites, I see that turtles are of more interest than the whales. I
think that is probably because the whales have made such a comeback. If you go to the links page on our website, you will see a number of
organizations listed and can check them out for yourself.
Anything anyone does to help any of the creatures around the peninsula is good news to me.
[Edited on 8-11-2006 by bajajudy]
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
NRDC made whales the centerpiece of their fight against the San Ignacio salt works. Probably, IMO, more because whales are "in" and help bring in the
bucks than any real threat to them from the salt operation. Some have criticized them for that tactic.
Whatever. Just the other side of the coin from things like developers bathing their projects in greenwash, or oil companies (including BP) playing up
how much they care for the environment.
Sometimes it seems that whatever happens won't be based on any kind of truth, regardless of the outcome.
|
|
|
oladulce
Super Nomad
Posts: 1625
Registered: 5-30-2005
Location: bcs
Member Is Offline
|
|
I'm not usually a joiner and the Natural Resources Defense Council is the only environmental group I've ever donated to. I like their policy of "to
save it, we'll buy it ourselves and protect it" because it seems to be the most effective. They use their funds to buy islands, reefs, forests etc
that are at risk worldwide- and then do nothing with it ( except maybe post Rangers etc).
I got the same invite to "rejoin' in the mail recently.
One interesting note in the mailer was the confirmation of a rumor I'd heard recently- that the gov. of Baja Sur is planning to pave the road from San
Ignacio town, out to La Laguna. The Governor said in a speech he gave in San Juanico last month, that all the recent road paving projects are a "high
priority".
Here's some links that explain what they're trying to set up around La Laguna. It's not only the saltworks, but the ejido members selling off their
privatized parcels which will result in development around the laguna that they're concerned about.
The plan of the NRDC and Wildcoast is to pay the Ejidos an annual fee not to sell their properties. This article explains it best.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051022/news_1n22sa...
Here's a couple of others:
http://www.savebiogems.org/baja/
Wildcoast
|
|
|
M_Man
Junior Nomad
Posts: 60
Registered: 8-22-2003
Location: Truckee, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
NRDC
I'd be skeptical about the NRDC's plans and motives.
A few years ago, I attended a California Fish and Game Commission meeting where the commission was taking public testimony on "Near Shore" Rockfish
regulations.
There were several other issues on the agenda for this meeting, including a petition by a San Diego area aquaculturist to reintroduce Red Abalone to
the Point Loma area. (At his expence, with no expectation to ever harvest the abalone, just to reestablish a separate population for bio-diversity's
sake.)
NRDC was against it and the Commission nixed it.
As each item came up, a commissioner would ask the State Council (State's lawyer) "Would NRDC sue", given a certain action, and the answer was always
yes.
Seemed to me that NRDC held sway over CDF&G policymaking, period.
When the Near Shore issue came up, Kate Wing-NRDC's point person on all things marine-related, testified to NRDC's position which boiled down to this:
NRDC wanted DFG to close all the near shore (under 20 fathoms) to sport fishing period, whether from PCFV (Passenger Carrying Fishing Vessels -party
boats), private boat, kayaks, or SCUBA and free divers.
Upon cross examination, NRDC said that commercial bottom trawlers and commercial live-trap fishing should be allowed to continue.
I was shocked needless to say!
Bottom trawling is as bad if not worse than long-line fishing, in that it destroys the bottom habitat and takes many times the target species as
bycatch, which is just thrown back into the ocean dead.
The live trap fishery targets juvenile fish that will be sold live, from crowded aquariums in Asian Resturants and markets to make whole fish dinners
that fit a dinner plate. Alas, these fish are taken before they've reached sexual maturity, and they have never spawned or contributed their DNA to
the gene pool.
This seems to be a funny way for protecting the resource.
NRDC clearly had an agenda different than protecting the resource, though for the life of me I couldn't figure their angle.
Why would NRDC support Factory Fishing, the bane of the Oceans?
You decide.
I'd save my money, mabye take a whale watching trip, and keep the cash in Baja.
|
|
|
comitan
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4177
Registered: 3-27-2004
Location: La Paz
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
This site has some info on Wildcoast you may be interested in.
***************.blogspot.com
Strive For The Ideal, But Deal With What\'s Real.
Every day is a new day, better than the day before.(from some song)
Lord, Keep your arm around my shoulder and your hand over my mouth.
“The sincere pursuit of truth requires you to entertain the possibility that everything you believe to be true may in fact be false”
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by M_Man
I'd be skeptical about the NRDC's plans and motives.
A few years ago, I attended a California Fish and Game Commission meeting where the commission was taking public testimony on "Near Shore" Rockfish
regulations.
There were several other issues on the agenda for this meeting, including a petition by a San Diego area aquaculturist to reintroduce Red Abalone to
the Point Loma area. (At his expence, with no expectation to ever harvest the abalone, just to reestablish a separate population for bio-diversity's
sake.)
NRDC was against it and the Commission nixed it.
As each item came up, a commissioner would ask the State Council (State's lawyer) "Would NRDC sue", given a certain action, and the answer was always
yes.
Seemed to me that NRDC held sway over CDF&G policymaking, period.
When the Near Shore issue came up, Kate Wing-NRDC's point person on all things marine-related, testified to NRDC's position which boiled down to this:
NRDC wanted DFG to close all the near shore (under 20 fathoms) to sport fishing period, whether from PCFV (Passenger Carrying Fishing Vessels -party
boats), private boat, kayaks, or SCUBA and free divers.
Upon cross examination, NRDC said that commercial bottom trawlers and commercial live-trap fishing should be allowed to continue.
I was shocked needless to say!
Bottom trawling is as bad if not worse than long-line fishing, in that it destroys the bottom habitat and takes many times the target species as
bycatch, which is just thrown back into the ocean dead.
The live trap fishery targets juvenile fish that will be sold live, from crowded aquariums in Asian Resturants and markets to make whole fish dinners
that fit a dinner plate. Alas, these fish are taken before they've reached sexual maturity, and they have never spawned or contributed their DNA to
the gene pool.
This seems to be a funny way for protecting the resource.
NRDC clearly had an agenda different than protecting the resource, though for the life of me I couldn't figure their angle.
Why would NRDC support Factory Fishing, the bane of the Oceans?
You decide.
I'd save my money, mabye take a whale watching trip, and keep the cash in Baja. |
While NRDC is not entirely to blame, the split between sportfishers and environmentalists in California is a gosh darn tragedy. Years ago when I was
active in environmental issues we got some much needed and appreciated help from NRDC in Montana and British Columbia, and I respected and supported
them. Now I simply cannot understand their arrogance and unwillingness to work outside of an increasingly narrow agenda vis-a-vis marine
environmentalism.
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by freaking102
"...the split between sportfishers and environmentalists..."
And when it comes to a showdown of sportfishers vs. commercial fisherman over limited fish, I will vote for the guy making a living, and tell the
sportsmen to take up another hobby.
Sportfishers are a lot like offroaders and hunters. They profess to love the outdoors, but their sport activities are all destructive to the outdoors
and need to be controlled. |
Sportfishers are controlled. When managers listen to them, fisheries can improve. Examples, in California, are the vastly improved fisheries for
halibut and white sea bass, and the recovery of black sea bass numbers.
Making a living: People make a living from sportfishing too. And the returns are usually much higher. And rarely, if ever, has sportfishing destroyed
a fishery, as has been common for commercial fishing.
Latest news from the commercial fisheries: Japan lies and cheats to kill tons of fish over their quota:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/11/1154803102432.html...
Your kind of folks, along with the shrimp trawlers who kill, throw out and waste 90% of the catch while scraping the bottom habitat clean. Yeah, much
worse than sportfishers.
Baja is seeing a growing number of developments, resorts, hotels, restaurants, and increased indisciminate and uncontolled netting and spearing of
fish, to support the influx of tourists who pretend THEIR hobbies are not "destructive to the outdoors."
I would suggest that rather than deciding that marine resources should be destroyed only by those who are paid to do it, they should be managed and
protected so that marine stocks remain healthy, for the benefit of commercial fishers, and sportfishers, and divers, and for their own intrinsic
values.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Don Alley versus Freaking 102. Have been a sport fisherman, a commercial fisherman and a research fisherman(at tax payers expense). I'll line up with
Mr. Alley. He's pretty much got it figured out!
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
