Yes KC, that was my point. We, on this site, preach sustainability and care for what we want to enjoy and in that way we are Greenies. A further point I wanted to make is that Black and White opinions and an Us against "Them" does not seem to take the debate forward and does not present the recreational fishing position with credibility. On the face of it, I do not support large closures/exclusion zones in the Bay. But what is the detail? And even more importantly, how does any closure fit into an integrated management plan? I see the destruction of mangroves and urban development to the water's edge as contributing to Bay problems. I would ultimately prefer to be involved in designing a management plan for the Bay rather than being positioned alongside extremist naysayers. My argument is that an Us against Them strategy always results in a winner and a loser. Continued access to the bay and a sustainable resource is too valuable to me to risk being on the losing side.Originally Posted by kc
And PETA - extreme views mostly based on emotion and distorted logic don't move me. I have actively countered their point of view in my house by discussing the PETA position with kids and grandkids. It did not take long for the kids to see through the crap and equally acknowledge a need to treat animals (including fish) with respect.
Brenden