The alternatives description states that "non-consumptive" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones.

Did the department provide any explanation or data to show that this statement is legitimate ?

"bird-watching" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones - this is absurd, there is no maximum/minimum relationship between the two activities.

"diving" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones - this is absurd, there is no maximum/minimum relationship between the two activities.

"kayaking" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones - this is absurd, there is no maximum/minimum relationship between the two activities.

None of these examples pass the stink test. If the claims are not legitimate - then the proposals are not legitimate and should not be up for consideration by our government representatives..

just my 2 cents.
back to sleep for awhile...