Local and commercial fishermen say the revenue loss to the state from further fishing restrictions enacted by the initiative would be devastating.
By Melonie Magruder / Special to The Malibu Times
As the California Department of Fish and Game’s Blue Ribbon Task Force for the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative gets ready to hold another round of meetings in Santa Monica next week, local residents, fishermen and environmental groups are up in arms over the initiative.
The public meetings will help finalize a draft proposal to implement a law passed in 1999 designed to protect the state’s marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems and marine natural heritage.
The California Fish and Game Commission adopted a final package of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for the central coast in 2007, but the task of designating protected areas along all of California’s 1,100 miles of coastline is complicated by the vested interests of all the various stakeholders, from environmentalists to commercial fishing groups.
Locally, the initiative could possibly affect areas at Westward Beach, Point Dume and Paradise Cove.
Generally, marine reserves permit swimming and other recreational activities, but prohibit any kinds of extraction, from fish to kelp, other than for certain scientific data collection. To meet the terms of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), the task force has been holding regular meetings with more than 60 stakeholders statewide, including scientists, environmental activists, commercial industries and private citizens, to shape the initiative.
However, California’s commercial fishing industry has voiced strong objections to the scope of restricted areas designated in the MPAs, claiming that such measures will hurt their business. The California Fisheries Coalition alone contributes more than $5.5 billion annually to California’s economy-an amount the state can little afford to constrict in its current fiscal crisis, according to the coalition’s communications director, Ray Young.
“It’s not that we’re anti-environment,” coalition spokesman Vern Goehring said in a phone interview with The Malibu Times. “The fishing industry is one of the most regulated industries in the state and our members employ responsible practices. We’re all for proper ocean stewardship, but a much greater danger to California’s marine life is growing ocean pollution. We can’t understand why the MLPA doesn’t address that.”
Commercial fisheries, which have seen rigorous regulation of permissible activity increase during the last half dozen years, are alarmed at the prospect of wider and wider designated protected areas, forcing their boats to travel farther for smaller harvests.
“Fish don’t distribute themselves equally,” Goehring said. “If you classify an inordinate share of fishable ocean as untouchable, we can’t just go elsewhere to find the fish. This will negatively impact commercial fishing.”
Charlotte Stevenson is a staff scientist with the environmental nonprofit Heal the Bay, and counters that they are just as concerned about sustainable stewardship.
“We are not anti-fishing, and believe that large areas of coastal waters can be designated for commercial fishing,” Stevenson said. “The Central Coast MPAs designate only about 9 percent of those waters closed to fishing.
“We’re concerned that fish and other marine species’ young have enough area to migrate and this requires protecting key habitats like deep rock and kelp forests,” Stevenson continued. “Rather than just saying a blanket area is protected, we want to use correct science to identify which habitats are the most sensitive and protect them.”
Melissa Miller-Henson is a spokeswoman for the MLPA Initiative and says that their offices use the best available science to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
“We don’t argue whether over-fishing or coastal development or runoff pollution is the greatest threat to our marine life,” Miller-Henson said in a phone interview. “There are several agencies addressing all these aspects of ocean protection. Our process is strictly to identify the best ways to implement the Marine Life Protection Act. So we look to map geographies that give us more bang for our buck. What is the largest habitat area we can designate that protects the largest number of marine life, while still allowing for commercial and residential fishing?”
Miller-Henson agrees that water quality issues must be addressed but said that is the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board.
The California Fisheries Coalition has estimated that the costs to implement and monitor the MLPA would run $35 million to $55 million a year and has published a letter from the president of the California Fish and Game Wardens’ Association requesting delay in implementing any plan because their enforcement staff has already been stretched thin by budget cuts.
Miller-Henson said that her offices only make recommendations and it is up to the governor to decide how much to spend on project implementation and enforcement.
“But we have estimates for monitoring at as little as $9 million a year,” she said. “Still, we believe securing public/private partnerships to manage a proper plan is essential to its ongoing success.”
Meanwhile, local area fishermen and residents have been expressing their concern or support through letters to the editor and comments posted on The Malibu Times Web site regarding possible closures of local fishing areas.
One, who said he has been surfing, skin-diving and kayak fishing in the Point Dume area since the 1970s, wrote that the area is one of the safest accessible points for fishermen, and pointed out that he, like others, has spent thousands of dollars on fishing-related gear. “If you close the most accessible areas to fish,” he wrote, “I believe people will take their fishing dollars to other states or Mexico…denying California the monies it receives through recreational fishing”
June Louks, a resident of Point Dume, supports wide designation of coastal areas as MPAs and encouraged her children to join her in submitting testimony to the MLPA.
“I can appreciate that people have been fishing here for years, but if we continue what we are doing, there won’t be any fish left anyway,” Louks’ letter to the task force reads.
Some residents have expressed concern that MPA designation will make it illegal for recreational fishing boats to even travel through such zones, but the Fish and Game Department Web site says that is not the case. Anchoring, transit or drifting through MPAs is permitted as long as no fishing gear is deployed. The MLPA also allows the department to monitor MPA effectiveness over time for re-assessment.
“Our main task is determining how few MPAs we can create and still provide adequate protection, while not negatively impacting our state’s commercial and recreational fishing industry,” Miller-Henson said. “We all have a stake in this.”
A draft recommendation is scheduled for review by the California Fish and Game Commission by December, with an approved plan scheduled to be in place by next summer. In the meantime, the task force is actively seeking input from regional stakeholders at all public meetings.
The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meets Tuesday at 9 a.m. and Wednesday at 8 a.m. at the Sheraton Delfina, 530 Pico Blvd, Santa Monica. More information can be obtained online at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp