Marine protection act could reel in fishing lines
Marine protection act could reel in fishing lines
By Ed Zieralski
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 18, 2008
Recreational fishing in Southern California's near-shore waters and even from its beaches could change drastically in about 1½ years.
That's the estimated time it will take stakeholders, a science advisory team and what is being called a blue-ribbon task force to arrive at compromises that will identify a new network of marine protected areas between Point Conception and the U.S.-Mexico border.
It's known as the South Coast Study Region, the third stop of five regions for the Marine Life Protection Act process. The South Coast is a vast area of 2,355 square miles with 557 miles of shoreline and more than 16 million people in five coastal counties, 10 million in Los Angeles County's coastal cities alone.
The average fisherman likely will say, “Wake me when it's over,” but for the scores of people working on the stakeholders group, the science advisory team and the task force, this will be an intense period of regular meetings, long days and contentious dialogue.
Imagine deciding which part of the La Jolla or Point Loma kelp beds to close to fishing. Imagine choosing which near-shore canyons to close, which deep-water beltways invaded by schools of migratory predator fish chasing schools of migratory anchovies and sardines to make no-take fishing reserves.
The joint panel's three choices for marine protected areas require complex thinking and analysis in addition to negotiation.
A state marine reserve shuts down all fishing.
A state marine park eliminates commercial take but allows for some recreational fishing.
A state marine conservation area limits recreational and/or commercial activity but allows take of such things as salmon and squid.
It would be a daunting task even if there wasn't a deadline, but these groups are on the clock because of limited funding from the environmentalist-controlled Resources Legacy Fund Foundation.
The group became the saviors of this MLPA process when the state realized it didn't have the personnel or money to make it fly. So the RLFF pumped an estimated $8 million into the MLPA when it looked as though it might die yet another death.
In the final draft, these groups essentially must decide the fate of our near-shore waters while ensuring that the fisheries in them remain viable and sustainable and that any no-take closures don't result in economic hardship to the fishing and tourist communities in Southern California.
“Lessons learned” from the initial phase of the MLPA – the Central Coast – showed a bias against fishermen and little regard for the socio-economic impact caused by severe fishing closures. Facilitators and commercial and recreational fishermen are working to make sure that doesn't happen in Southern California. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans has grouped the top conservationists in the fishing industry to do battle.
It's said that every mile of Southern California is someone's favorite fishing hole. All of those fishermen will be watching this process closely, even though most won't know what hit them until it's over.
The numbers were staggering from the Central Coast in terms of closures, and fishermen need to know it. There now are 29 marine protected areas covering 204 square miles of the Central Coast, with 85 square miles designated as “no-take fishing zones.”
“It amounts to 40 percent of the best sportfishing areas,” said Bob Fletcher, president of the Sportfishing Association of California.
There's no way fishermen here will tolerate losing 40 percent of their best fishing grounds in Southern California. Or is there?
Fletcher lists figures showing that the state, with just the Central Coast MLPA final and the North Central Coast moving toward a conclusion, already has closed off 9 percent of California's waters to recreational fishing. That includes the Channel Islands closures and the Central Coast region of the MLPA.
When all this started during the passage of the MLPA in 1999, environmental protectionists threw out a number estimating the amount of water they wanted to close to fishing off California. The number was 20 percent. They're nearly halfway there and have completed only one region.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by hookset
