OK, it's time for an experiment. Who was right? The people who said fish and fishermen would benefit from ending fishing in selected areas? Or the people who said that closed areas would hurt fishermen without producing benefits?
Answer: conservationists were right when we said some areas should be closed to fishing, that the closures would benefit fish and people.
Will the opponents of fishing closures admit that research shows the benefits of fishing closures? Apparently not, according to this article in the Ventura County Star:
Joel Greenberg, the Southern California chairman of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said he's not sold on the idea that the reserves are working.I wonder what it'll take to convince the proponents of the so-called "freedom to fish" campaign that opposes fishing closures and sees a conspiracy behind protection proposals. Tweet