It seems to me that the best option proposed so far is something close to a “underwater no-take zone” that:
- -Protects the coves
-Will not create pushback from non-diving fisherman groups that fish from the pier (is this a real concern?)
-Won’t alienate club members who like to fish elsewhere in the Puget sound
-Won’t incite the resistance of the entire fishing industry
-Easier to implement than a marine reserve (although not sure if this was referring to legal stuff or just because of pushback from above-water fishing folks)
-If there is interest in creating more broad protection I might personally support it but would love to get get Seacrest protected first. Hate to have nothing because we either couldn’t agree or went to big. Baby steps...
I think the above is the closest we have to a consensus of the group but if I’m off base let me know. I’m more than happy to help with some of the legwork if others can identify where to start.
Laywer: Really appreciate your offer to provide Pro-Bono legal support. Can you recommend where we should start / what to explore?
I assume there are a lot of specifics TBD including:
- -Would this need to be a new ordinance or does a similar form of protection already exist?
-Would it make more sense to seek a different form of protection that can be more easily adopted (ie: no legislation required - just a designation by an existing regulatory group)
-How is/should the scope of the protected area defined?
-Who do we need to engage? Is there other legwork that needs to be completed first?
PMing Kitsapdiver, Grateful Diver, CaptnJack, Sea Goat, fnerg, Joshua Smith, Desert Diver who I noticed as all either supporting the underwater no-take approach or perhaps knew what to do next.