For clarification, it appears that Alternative 2 provides for closure of bottom fishing whereas Alternative 3 provides for closure to ALL comsumptive use (in those discrete areas identified on the respective maps).

Note that one of the management objectives is to have regulations that are enforceable. Frankly, any regulation is "enforceable." The real issue is whether the regulations are reasonably understood and that the public can reasonably comply. Chopping up that coastline into multiple sections does not seem to meet my criteria of reasonability. Fog, wind, tides, fog, fog.....

And I am particularly peeved by the implication that there is a need for less fishing opportunity in order to provide for non-consumptive recreation. That is a form of elitism. Nothing currently prevents non-consumptive recreation but what those non-consumptive users want is their own private aquarium. Nuts to that! If the bottom fish resource/fishery is properly managed for a healthy, sustainable population then that should be good enough for the dive community.

Re: Alternate 1, is there really a viable non-tribal long line fishery in this area? Or is this simply a red herring to get the sport fishing community to buy into this alternative?