A
state blue-ribbon panel unanimously approved landmark fishing
restrictions Tuesday for Southern California, creating a patchwork of
havens for marine life designed to replenish the seas while leaving
some waters open for anglers.
The plan, approved 5 to 0 during a meeting at which emotions boiled
over briefly into shouting and shoving, was a compromise intended to
sustain the 250-mile coastline's environmental as well as economic
health -- forged during a year of contentious negotiations between
conservationists and fishing interests.
In recent decades, the catches of many species, including rockfish and
cod, have fallen by as much as 95%. Populations of lobster, sea urchin,
squid, sea bass, yellowtail and swordfish have all been in sharp
decline. Fisheries experts have argued that some of those species could
disappear entirely if steps were not taken to create no-fishing zones
where breeding stocks could be replenished.
But any move to close waters to fishermen has been strongly resisted by
both the fishing industry and recreational boaters. On Tuesday,
representatives of both groups, many of them wearing black T-shirts,
turned out at the panel's meeting and predicted job losses and business
closures.
Environmentalists countered that stiff curbs were necessary to preserve
and replenish fading stocks of marine life. They said that some panel
members were allowing economic concerns to outweigh scientific
guidelines designed to ensure the long-term health of the ocean.
After hearing from dozens of speakers, the panel members agreed on a
plan that would close some areas, including waters off Laguna Beach and
Point Dume, while allowing fishing off the Palos Verdes Peninsula and
most of Catalina Island.
"We're not going to make everyone happy, but this has to be done,"
panel Chairwoman Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in an interview before the
vote. "It's agony to weigh the environmental goals against people's
livelihoods, especially here in Southern California, where the
urban/ocean interface is greater than anywhere else in the nation."
The Fish and Game Commission, which has adopted recommendations by
other Marine Life Protection Area panels, is expected to take up the
Southern California plan in December.
Elected officials tried to intervene on behalf of their constituents.
On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wrote to the panel
expressing his "strong support" for designated marine life protection
areas. A week ago, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a
resolution in support of protecting kelp and canyon habitats at Point
Dume, but leaving the waters off Palos Verdes Peninsula open to
fishing. State Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) supported that plan.
George L. Osborn, a lobbyist for the California Fish and Game Wardens
Assn., told the panel late Tuesday afternoon: "We do not have the
resources to enforce regulations currently on the books. This is a
matter that jeopardizes officer safety."
A group led by Laguna Beach City Councilwoman Verna Rollinger supported
a proposal to ban fishing along six miles of her city's coastline. "I
want fish in the ocean, and on my dinner plate," she said. "To do that,
we have to restore the ocean."
Rollinger got what she wanted. But the plan elsewhere yielded to
fishing industry concerns that it could drive people out of work in
already difficult economic times.
Commercial trawling for squid and sportfishing for species including
yellowtail and swordfish would be allowed on the back side of Santa
Catalina Island, but sea urchin and sea cucumber could not be taken
there. The plan would create a no-fishing zone off La Jolla -- a
spawning ground for black sea bass and leopard sharks -- and prohibit
fishing in the kelp beds and submarine canyons on both sides of Point
Dume.
In a major win for fishing interests, the plan would allow continued
fishing in the kelp forest and rocky reef habitats off the Palos Verdes
Peninsula. "We got a good deal there," said Bob Bertelli, a commercial
fisherman for 25 years.
But overall, fishing enthusiasts were "upset about this plan," said
Wendy Tochihara, a fishing advocate and national sales manager for
Izorline International, a fishing line manufacturer.
"We are a dying breed; the average age of a commercial fisherman is 59,
and it's tough work," she said. "The impacts will not stop at the
docks. They will hit restaurants, markets and the gas stations where we
fill up our boat fuel tanks, even the manufacturers of the nuts and
bolts on the engines of our vessels."
Conservationists dismissed fishing industry predictions of economic
catastrophe as overblown. They pointed out, for example, that a
five-year review of marine protection areas established in the Channel
Islands in 2003 found no discernible change in commercial landings for
some of the region's largest fisheries: squid, lobster, urchin and crab.
Tempers flared. The panel was discussing proposed fishing closures
Tuesday morning when kayak fishing enthusiast Charles Volkens, 44,
stood up and angrily shouted at the panelists: "You have not listened
to us throughout this whole process!"
When an audience member asked him to quiet down, Volkens screamed, "Come outside and tell me to shut up!"
At that point, the man charged at Volkens and pushed him. Both men were
quickly ushered out of the Los Angeles International Airport-area hotel
ballroom by security officers.
Later, Volkens said he was frustrated that the panelists were even
considering the idea of banning fishing in a hot spot like Point Dume,
which he described as "the last place left in the area where we can
fish for white sea bass."
Similarly, Sarah Lester, coastal resources director for the environmental group Heal the Bay, said, "I've got mixed feelings.
"Some keys areas like Point Dume were protected," she said. "But I'm
concerned they overlooked scientific guidelines in places like Palos
Verdes Peninsula."
The panel's effort was conducted under the California Marine Life
Protection Act, which was adopted in 1999 to set aside a comprehensive,
science-based network of marine parks and wilderness areas.
In an interview after the vote, panelist Meg Caldwell, director of
Stanford Law School's environmental and natural resources law and
policy program, expressed a measure of disappointment in the outcome.
"There was a lot of give and take," she added. "But overall, it's better than what we have now."
louis.sahagun@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
