San Diego Union-Tribune

Proposal offered is start for fishermen

ED ZIERALSKI

March 2, 2009

It likely will be labeled the fishermen's proposal.

How much of it makes its way into the final preferred alternative presented to the Fish and Game Commission for the Southern California section of the Marine Life Protection Act later this year remains to be seen.

But for now, the fishermen's proposal is what it is. It's a start.

What else to call an external proposal for marine protected areas that is a result of meetings that brought together commercial and recreational fishermen. The Marine Life Protection Act of 1999, which calls for a network of marine protected areas along the California coast, did something no other issue ever accomplished.

It united and galvanized commercial and recreational fishermen for the fight of their fishing lives for the fishing grounds they cherish.

They call it FIN, the Fisermen's Information Network. FIN is all about collaboration, communication, togetherness among recreational and commercial fishermen.

They put aside their differences and fishing methods and hammered out and agreed upon a proposal. They brought in one of the scientists from the science advisory team to see if the proposal is science-worthy. It is. They played by all the rules of the tangled spider web that is the MLPA.

“I'm a recreational fisherman,” said computer whiz Joe Exline,a member of the Oceanside Anglers who will present the proposal to the Regional Stakeholder Group at its meeting tomorrow in Long Beach. “But I was there with a lot of other recreational fishermen in a room with a lot of commercial fishing interests. There was a time when these two groups threw chairs at each other. But this process has brought both sides together.”

It couldn't have happened at a better time, this FIN. The MLPA process for Southern California reaches a critical time with meetings tomorrow and Wednesday in Long Beach. Here's where it is:

Thus far, the members of the Regional Stakeholders Group – made up of commercial and recreational fishermen, representatives of Indian tribes, environmentalists, city and port officials and others – have been huddled in meetings, some of which have been contentious. They were split into three smaller factions that I'm told are a mix of preservationists (or environmentalists, moderate and extreme) and conservationists (fishermen who actually use and know the ocean). That explains the contentious part.

The preservationists want to draw their maps of marine protected areas and close off as much ocean as possible. The conservationists want to continue fishing in as many areas as possible.

Think of this process as a baseball game pitting two sides who genuinely don't like each other. Let's say it's a nine-inning game.

We're in the bottom of the third inning. Lots of baseball left.

By Wednesday, the Regional Stakeholders Group is expected to have arrived at its own six proposals for marine protected areas, two each, from the three segments of the group.

Two other external proposals are expected in addition to the fishermen's proposal, giving the group nine proposals from which to work. Around October, the Regional Stakeholder Group will be asked to arrive at three proposals to give to the blue ribbon task force, which will send it to the California Fish and Game Commission for approval.

Let's see how well received this fishermen's proposal is at the meetings.

FIN goes to bat and needs a home run.

North County Times

Groups submit ocean protection plans

Oceanside angler outlines fishing group's proposal

By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | March 4, 2009

In a sort of shot across the bow, a local angler unveiled a statewide group's proposal Tuesday to restrict fishing in 10 percent of Southern California coastal waters, while keeping harbor areas such as Oceanside open.

"Big" Joe Exline, secretary of the Oceanside Anglers Club, presented the proposal on behalf of the Fishermen's Information Network at a Long Beach meeting of the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group.

The group's 64-member panel, comprising scientists, environmentalists and fishermen from throughout Southern California, is working to create a system of marine protected areas stretching from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. The effort is an outgrowth of a state law, the Marine Life Protection Act, which aims to reverse a sharp decline in ocean fish populations in recent decades by redrawing ---- and expanding ---- the boundaries of California's existing hodgepodge collection of protected areas.

Panel members are just beginning to talk about which areas should be fenced off to fishermen and which places should be left alone, and are months away from refining a plan that ultimately will be handed off to the California Fish and Game Commission late in the year.

But on Tuesday, special interest groups got their chance to put forth their own proposals for protected areas. And three such proposals were made.

Aside from the one from the Fishermen's Information Network, proposals were submitted by the United Anglers of Southern California and an environmental coalition consisting of Santa Monica Baykeeper and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper.

The anglers proposed restricting fishing along 20 percent of the coast and the environmentalists advocated overlaying 33 percent of the ocean with protected areas.

Following several relatively quiet meetings that focused on laying the ground rules, the presentations sparked a testy exchange between fishermen on the panel and presenters from the environmental coalition.

Buck Everingham, a panel member who owns a San Diego-area bait company, suggested that the conservationists' plan would largely wipe out close-in sport fishing opportunities for boats heading out from San Diego Bay. He was referring to their proposal to restrict fishing around Point Loma and La Jolla.

"You've pretty much annihilated the Point Loma half-day fleet," he said.

Tom Ford, executive director for Santa Monica Baykeeper, said he was only aiming to protect fish populations, and had no intention of putting people out of business.

"I'm not out to get anybody here," Ford said.

Scott McCreary, a facilitator for the state's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, sought to diffuse the tension in the room by underscoring the preliminary nature of the proposals on the table, and the likelihood many changes will be made in the months ahead.

"We are far from the finish line," McCreary said.

For now, the starting point is being framed by the sharply contrasting proposals of the statewide fishing network and conservationists.

The plan Exline outlined called for restrictions on 239 square miles of coastal waters between the shoreline and three miles out, the point where the state cedes jurisdiction to the federal government.

That compares with the existing system of protected areas, which spans 180 square miles, or 7 percent of the region's coastal waters.

"We created a strong backbone all along the coast," Exline said.

He said the Fisherman's Information Network suggests creating a half-dozen new protected areas and increasing the level of protection in some existing areas.

In North County, he said, the group proposes creating a 10.7-square-mile protected area off of Del Mar. It would be a "state marine reserve," meaning all fishing would be banned.

"It's an area that, even though it has some good offshore rocky habitat, it has less (boat) traffic than other areas," Exline said.

The group also would create a San Dieguito Lagoon reserve and convert the existing La Jolla conservation area ---- where some limited fishing is allowed ---- into a reserve.

The plan would largely leave Oceanside and San Diego Bay alone. Exline said the group chose not to restrict fishing around harbors.

"We want to have the least economic impact on the communities and fisheries," he said.

The proposals are posted at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meeting_030309.asp. The group's proposal is listed as "Draft External Proposal A."

KSBY-TV 3 NBC San Luis Obispo

Residents on Central Coast debate the Marine Life Protection Act

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Reported by: Melissa Mecija

Ocean conservation topped the agenda during a meeting regarding the California Marine Life Protection Act.

There are 47 marine protected areas in Southern California. The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) requires California's system of marine protected areas to be redesigned. The MLPA Initiative is now studying an area from Point Concepcion in Santa Barbara County to the California/Mexico border.

There are more than 1,000 miles of California coast. Some of those marine protected areas would mean no fishing zones. Thursday, both sides debated about what is best for California.

California's beautiful coast is one of the state's claims to fame. The fishermen survive on the ocean. Sport fishers and free divers, like Iaon Pohlit, say the water is like their second home.

"It's part of our heritage in Santa Barbara," Pohlit said.

Pohlit is concerned about regulations which may limit his sport.

"They're looking to do 30 to 50 percent closure on the shore access here in Santa Barbara," Pohlit said. "It seems like the people with the most money in this situation have the loudest voice, so it's the little people that really count. It is the individual citizen that stands to lose the most in this situation."

For commercial fishermen like Jeff Massen, it is a balancing act-making sure their livelihood as well as ocean resources are not threatened.

"We're negotiating, we're discussing, we're free thinking and we're trying to develop the best possible habitat," Massen said.

On the other side, the task force with the MLPA says it is about survival of the ocean and the life in it.

"We want to rebuild sustainable fisheries so we can enjoy a healthy commercial and recreational fishing industry here in California," said Mike Chrisman, secretary for Natural Resources.

Although no decisions were made Thursday, Chrisman says this process is all about you.

"Shareholders and interested parties are a part of this process, have been from the beginning," Chrisman said.

This discussion is expected to last well into 2009.

All the meetings are public. The next session of the Blue Ribbon Task Force is in April.