Marine Life Protection Act not a boon for everyone Re: “Underwater Parks Day a lure for landlubbers and ocean lovers” (Jan. 12, Page 9): I always enjoy the underwater photographs of contributor Judith Lea Garfield, but her attempts at political commentary should be left to others. Specifically, her comments on the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) are both inaccurate and naive. Contrary to her claim, California voters never “said ‘yes’ to the MLPA.” This was not an initiative placed on the ballot, but a legislative bill. And it wasn’t “bipartisan.” Votes in various Senate and Assembly committees were essentially along party lines. Republican Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed the first rendition of this act in 1998; Democrat Gov. Gray Davis signed its successor the following year. The primary thrust of the MLPA is the establishment of coastal no-take reserves where all “take” (e.g., fishing) is banned. Falsely advertised as “science-based,” they are in reality founded on the utopian concept that, left alone, problem areas of our coastline will be healed by Mother Nature. Prohibited within these reserves are most proven marine management techniques. For instance, periodic population explosions of kelp-destroying sea urchins can no longer be managed within these reserves. Also, federal law now permits communities to control nuisance seals and sea lions. But within no-take reserves, our growing hordes of pinnipeds (eating up to 8 percent of their weight each day) must be allowed to multiply and consume local sea life without any restrictions whatsoever. Permitting uncontrolled predation by urchins, marine mammals or anything else is clearly a perverted concept of “marine life protection.” It is increasingly common to be told by activists that “the oceans are in crisis.” That may be true in some parts of the planet, but certainly not in California. Our coastal waters are strictly controlled, especially when it comes to commercial and sport fishing. If a species of fish appears to be below desired levels, it is common for the state Fish and Game Department to adjust the take of that fish by regulating the size, season, daily catch limit and/or fishing equipment. The range of restrictions, depending on the health of the fish species, can range from no limitations whatsoever to a total ban. The proven successes of this management technique cannot be rationally disputed. But the MLPA approach now implemented along our coast will, based on a fictitious crisis, take large swaths of coastline where our children will be banned from catching a surfperch, digging a sand crab or grabbing a grunion. The motivations for the MLPA’s excesses are troublesome. Environmental utopianism is just one. Probably more powerful is the rapidly growing animal-rights movement; once focused on hunting, it is now targeting fishing. And, as is often the case, money is a factor. Despite the lure of lucrative study grants, numerous marine biologists have decried the dubious science of the MLPA. Unfortunately, too many researchers have succumbed to this conflict of interest and have openly supported this harmful legislation. They must be aware that their studies and experiments will have little scientific validity because most will not be reproducible due to the variability of ocean conditions. Nevertheless, funding by both private foundations and taxpayers will ensure unending funds for study grants. The final conclusions of such studies are predictable: Either they will determine that the coastal closures “work” (however that is defined), which indicates that more reserves should be created — or that they don’t work because they are too small and therefore should be made larger. The MLPA fishing bans imposed upon our community will never go away. — Carl B. Lind, La Jolla

Has LJVN entered the ranks of Playboy? Oh, wow, are you saving me money or what! Pages 12 and 13 of the Jan. 19 issue can easily replace the centerfold pictures found in Playboy magazine. If this is a “family oriented” newspaper, many of the pictures on these pages should’ve been relegated to the trash bin. You should be more discreet in what you print! — Lou Cumming, La Jolla