Comment from Gary Gorodetsky

As a conservationist and an avid diver, I find that the proposal to expand the sanctuary and regulatory control beyond Flower Gardens is an overstretch of NOAA's objectives. If a resource is endangered or over commercialized than I am in favor of protecting and studying it to ensure access at a later date, however, how can NOAA justify expanding sanctuary boundaries and regulations beyond Flower Gardens when hardly anyone goes there to begin with. This is after all a fairly remote area of the gulf. Most recreational fishermen/divers with big enough vessels would need at least a two day weather window just to attempt or even to justify the expense of such a trip. With the unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent and the price of gas around $4 a gallon, very few non-commercial fishermen or divers would even contemplate that type of trip. In order to objectively assess the human impact on the area it makes sense to close one area while keeping a proximate area open. Then study and compare the outcomes for both zones. Even though, the open area would likely see an increase in traffic, given the remote location and the current state of the economy the likely impact would be incremental. On the other hand, the disseminating impact of commercial fishing on the area in question should be regulated and managed for obvious reasons. NOAA’s charter is to protect public resources and the organization generally does a fine job with it. However, why protect a resource that is not threatened? The use of taxpayers’ funds are best placed in the arena where they can be of the greatest impact. Flower Gardens and the expansion of the proposed sanctuary boundaries is not that place!