renaissance

More Nonsense From Eco Extremists

Editor,

Once again I see a long propaganda piece in the Independent’s Letter section trying to justify the unneeded and costly Marine Life Protection Act (“Public Gains From Support for Marine Hearings,” Feb. 18).

The whole MLPA fiasco is nothing but more environmental extremism used to take away ever more of our few remaining freedoms and drive businesses of the state.

Regarding the costly meetings, those opposed to closing off huge sections of the California coast may as well have gone to beach and told the tide not to come in. The wealthy powers behind this freedom-killing nonsense had their political slave’s minds made up from the day they first initiated the action. The silliest part of Ray Hiemstra’s letter is that, “they ultimately adopted a fair and balanced plan”. There is nothing fair and balanced about the plans they arrived at unless he means that they did not close off the entire coast, which is no doubt the ultimate goal of these environmental extremists.

Dave Connell, Laguna Beach

About the Author

Related Posts

  1. Nick Lamson

    Talk about extremism–this is just crazy propaganda! Protecting 10% of coastal waters, as the state plans to do, is hardly an infringement on freedoms. And, contrary to what this guy suggests, the new ocean parks (or “marine protected areas”) will almost certainly be GOOD for business. Tourism and recreation are huge in southern California, and lots of the planned protected areas, places like La Jolla, Catalina, and Laguna, are already big attractions because of their beauty and wildlife. If we keep them that way, people will keep coming to dive, swim, kayak, tidepool, or use the beach, keeping hotels and restaurants full and outdoor companies hopping. Keeping ocean wildlife and habitats healthy is a good investment, and one I certainly support!

  2. LagunaSurfer

    Don’t be fooled – nearly 90% of Southern CA’s coast will remain OPEN TO FISHING after the new marine reserves are enacted.

  3. Benny L.A.

    The process lost all credibility when it failed to deal with and include the real high magnitude impacts on fish and habitat such as non-point and source point runoff, coastal development, once through cooling, wetlands trashing, and an antiquated 3rd world method of disposing of human sewage where we swim,surf,fish and recreate.
    The spirit of the law was usurped by the the manipulative prowess of private money directing what should have been a truly public public process. And because you Keepers and Bay Healers were on the take and didnt stand up and take the high road to the master directive we could only resolve metaphorically that you had drank the “Kool Aid”.

  4. Sara

    Mr. O’Connell,

    I reiterate what both Nick Lamson and LagunaSurfer stated– 90% of the coast of California is still open to fishing.

    You state that this is an exercise in “freedom-killing,” what about the freedoms of our children and their children. Should they not be afforded the freedom to put on a mask and snorkel and explore the rocky reefs off Laguna Beach and see abundant and large fish. Our generation is having to make a minor sacrifice (again 10%) in order to make it so that future generations can enjoy the same, if not improved, ecosystems that we have the freedom and right to enjoy today.

Leave a Reply

*


− 1 = two