Fishermen Aren't The Enemy on Conservation

Re: "Current Affairs" (MetroNews, Oct. 17). It is important to distinguish closures and conservation when looking at the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). Closure does not necessarily equal protection. Recreational fishermen and the public are skeptical that closures to recreational fishing will be an effective tool in protecting California's oceans. Precedent suggests that for practical purposes, closures are permanent with few if any opportunities to re-open debate.

Contrary to what some people believe, recreational fishermen are conservationists. Recreational fishermen and the public support the concept of "ocean parks" as defined areas managed for recreation, habitat conservation, sustainable ocean practices and recreational fishing.

The MLPA directed the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to approach the task of fisheries management from a whole new perspective. The interests of the general public and recreational fishermen are aligned in this process. Both support scientifically based management of California's ocean resources based on fact, not emotion.

Deliberation and consensus are the keys to ensuring that these ocean resources are not locked up forever. We just have one chance to get it right. A decision by the California Fish and Game Commission to implement MPAs—especially no-take areas—without careful consideration and due process could have disastrous consequences for regional economies, recreational fishermen, and potentially the environment.

Bob Franko, Coastside Fishing Club Member, Partnership for Sustainable Oceans El Granada

Incorrect Touch

It seems there was an error in the Genesis information on page 73 of the Oct. 3–9, 2007 issue of Metro Silicon Valley. Garrett Wheeler wrote that they had a total of 14 Billboard hits. Actually, they had 22 American Billboard Hot 100 pop chart hits. Seventeen of them reached the Top 40. Ten of them reached the Top 20. I wonder where Garrett got the figure of 14 from. I thought the rest of his writing was good, though.

Have a nice day.

Bob Davis Los Altos

Smoked Out

Re: "Unfiltered Controversy" (MetroNews, Oct. 3). Thank you for this article. I used to be a smoker, but had to quit due to recurrent bronchitis. Although I have quit, I still have to deal with smoke coming into my apartment due to my downstairs neighbors smoking right under my windows. I live in an apartment building that has single-pane windows that even when closed do not provide a sufficient barrier to outside conditions. At night, I awaken from sleeping due to the smoke seeping in. My neighbors are less than concerned, in fact they tell me I should put up concrete, get a fan, use air freshener, or get over it. I know how it is to have a smoking addiction, and I have to admit that their stoop is a seemingly perfect area (for them) to smoke. The problem is that it affects me. So what can I possibly do? The that their stoop is a seemingly perfect area (for them) to smoke. The problem is that it affects me. So what can I possibly do? They refuse to step away from the building and they ignore the landlord's requests. I have requested info about San Jose's policy but have gotten no response. Anyhow, I am glad there is the debate out there. You can probably guess my stance. Thanks.

Kelly Scully San Jose

Why No New School?

Re: "Schoolhouse Rock" (MetroNews, Jan. 3). First off, thanks for publishing this article.

Like many others I moved into Evergreen area for schools and paid a premium for the home. The plan is to avoid sending kids to a private school if possible. Any parent would try his/her best to provide their kid(s) the best possible education. Knowingly why would they send their kids to a school that doesn't have good standardized test ratings (can't take the chance). It is nothing to do with race, color or economic background. It's the kids' future one would be thinking of and not the reasons mentioned above. While giving permission to build so y refuse to step away from the building and they ignore the landlord's requests. I have requested info about San Jose's policy but have gotten no response. Anyhow, I am glad there is the debate out there. You can probably guess my stance. Thanks.

Kelly Scully San Jose

Why No New School?

Re: "Schoolhouse Rock" (MetroNews, Jan. 3). First off, thanks for publishing this article.

Like many others I moved into Evergreen area for schools and paid a premium for the home. The plan is to avoid sending kids to a private school if possible. Any parent would try his/her best to provide their kid(s) the best possible education. Knowingly why would they send their kids to a school that doesn't have good standardized test ratings (can't take the chance). It is nothing to do with race, color or economic background. It's the kids' future one would be thinking of and not the reasons mentioned above. While giving permission to build so many new homes in this area and collecting hefty taxes I don't understand, why can't a new school be built in the area we live in? I understand it takes lot of money to build a school and it also takes time—but, the attitude toward the idea and the remarks are disappointing to say the least.

Vikranth Malyala San Jose

Send letters to the editor here.