Concerning your recent article, "A sanctuary in full" (Sept. 21), the questions to ask are: What have these marine sanctuaries accomplished? What have the citizens gotten for their tax money investment? In my opinion, not much. The benefits to the coast communities have been marginal at best.

The Channel Islands were designated in 1980, Monterey in 1992. At the time, the Channel Islands had several robust commercial and recreation fisheries. Many of these no longer exist or are almost gone. Considerable fishing has also been lost between Monterey and Port San Luis.

The Sierra Club makes a bogeyman out of the offshore oil industry. It should be noted that USGS/Minerals Management Service estimates there is 7 to 9 trillion recoverable cubic feet of natural gas right offshore. Instead of squandering billions developing windmills, every house already has gas infrastructure. Gas is very clean and provides for our energy needs far into the future.

What these sanctuaries provide is a home for marine mammals, some of which, like California sea lions, are above historic numbers. These pinnipeds consume many billions of pounds of fish annually, several times more than fishermen catch. Unfortunately, the sanctuary advocates most often blame "overfishing" on humans while omitting data on seals, sea lions, and sea otters.

Taxpayers are paying for this wishful thinking fantasy. The other big beneficiaries are the many technocrats who get jobs operating these mostly unneeded land grabs.

Steve Rebuck

San Luis Obispo