- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- A ‘Flying Fortress' flies in O.C. 3 hours & 28 minutes ago
- Tug of war over $157,076: County seeks relief in court 3 hours & 31 minutes ago
- Beer, betting and bikinis in Vegas
- Mexico fights for its image
- OPINION
No-fishing zones off OC? A first look at rough maps
March 4th, 2009, 4:08 pm · 32 Comments · posted by Pat Brennan, science, environment editor
The question: Should some parts of the Southern California coast, including Orange County’s, be declared off limits to sportfishing to protect marine habitat and wildlife?
The answer: Perhaps, but it’s going to be a fight.
A “regional stakeholder group” that includes the sportfishing industry, fishing and diving enthusiasts, environmental activists, government agencies and others has begun sketching out the first proposals for new Marine Protected Areas.
They were deep into the process at the Hilton Long Beach Friday, and won’t release their first draft maps publicly until next week. Webcasts and videotape of previous meetings are available here.
“We are just on the cusp,” said Kelly Sayce, public outreach and education coordinator for the Marine Protection Act initiative. “We are just entering into where the true work is getting done.”
Meetings over the past two days among the 64-member stakeholder group at times became heated.
“Whenever there is compromise, people become more aware of what’s at risk,” Sayce said. “I think there have been moments of tension.”
Stakeholder group member Norris Tapp, a sportfishing captain at Davey’s Locker and Newport Landing in Newport Beach, said he thinks the process will eventually result in “acceptable” Marine Protected Areas.
“There’s going to be some fishing areas lost,” Tapp said. “But based on negotiation, we’ll be able to minimize negative impacts economically and ‘socially’ — if you want to call consumptive use ‘social.’”
In the meantime, the state Department of Fish and Game released the first three maps of proposed protection zones from outside the stakeholder group. Each comes from an interest group that hopes to influence the outcome, and they could be factored into the Marine Protected Area process.
While none of the three maps is likely to emerge as the final version, they highlight sensitive areas — both for activists concerned about marine life, and members of the fishing community worried about losing their favored spots and even their livelihood.
The first proposed map, from the Fishermen’s Information Network, shows few no-fishing zones (called “State Marine Reserve, no-take” areas, and marked in red) off Orange County, except at Laguna Beach. See the map.
The second map, from the United Anglers of Southern California, shows a far smaller no fishing zone off Laguna, adjacent to a larger, blue area marked “State Marine Conservation Area.” It also includes a large area of green surrounding Santa Catalina Island, marked “State Marine Recreational Management Area.” See the map.
And the third map, from Santa Monica Channelkeeper and Santa Monica Baykeeper, shows a Southern California coast alight with red zones, where fishing would be prohibited. A large red zone encompasses the coasts of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach. See the map.
State Marine Reserves, in red, allow no fishing or other “take” of living marine resources, although boats can move through the area or anchor.
State Marine Conservation Areas, in blue, allows some recreational and commercial fishing, though limited.
State Marine Recreational Management Areas, in green, would involve regulation of waterfowl hunting.
The maps also include small areas in yellow, called State Marine Parks, where some recreational fishing would be allowed.
Such zones already have been declared on the central California coast; work is underway for north-central, and will begin in northern California toward the end of the year.
The Southern California effort should produce draft proposals by August or September, preferred alternatives by the end of the year and, after deliberations by the state Fish and Game Commission, could be enacted as early as next year.
While marine protected areas already exist off Southern California, the newest effort seeks to create a coherent, integrated and updated system, Sayce said.
Related posts:
No-fishing zones off OC? The discussion begins
‘Stakeholders’ group to discuss possible no-fish zones off OC
Recent posts:
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
32 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
-
16th annual People’s Choice
From your favorite restaurants and shops to the best day spa in town, here are your choices for the number one places to eat, shop and play in O.C.
Browse the 2009 Best of Orange County winners-
ADVERTISEMENT
Fishermen — what do you think of non-fishing zones?
I think it is crap – why dont they make no pollute zones instead –
Dana west Marina is flooding the harbor with raw pollution coming from failed serwer lines – fix that instead!
The MLPA could be the end of fishing for our future generations in our local waters. I go fishing every week and I see a great and healthy environment. There are healthy populations of abalone growing in our local waters, last week I saw a 12″ abalone. Lobster populations are healthy. The White Sea Bass are the healthiest since the gill net ban. Kelp growth this year is the best I have seen in a really long time.
I have two real concerns:
1) Why is the state wasting time and money on the MLPA in today’s financial environment? How are these areas going to be enforced when fishing areas are decreasing and the number of fishing licenses decrease?
2) If the state is really concerned about fish populations, then why don’t they just put restrictions on Commercial Fishing? Have you seen all of the traps that are set for lobsters? Have you seen the light boats out at night catching squid for export? The state should not restrict restrict recreational fishing.
just one more reason to consider leaving California.
With the way California’s going most people will need to go fishing just to have food on the table! I’m sure whom ever is looking to do this is some kind of environmental screw ball who has time to lobby this kind of action while the common folks have to be at work.
As for non-fishing zones, Is that kind of like the old smoking area’s in a restaurant? If so the boundaries will need to be marked with more buoy’s to work around. That’ll look nice don’t you think?
Discussion and regulation of our activities both on the sea and on the land is absolutely necessary in order to provide for the security of our natural resources, both present and future. It is imperative that we create a heightened awareness of our impact as fishermen, merchants, consumers, vacationers, boat owners, etc. on the ocean, and that we appropriately weigh the pros and cons of each of our actions.
Protecting our natural resources begins only when one takes the time to learn and truly care about them. How much do we really know about the wildlife under the ocean’s surface, here in Orange County? Or about the wildlife in the ocean, in general? Answer: Far too little.
We think you should stick to the “science” of man made global climate change.
i would rather see Orange County be declared off limits to illegals.
These “non-fishing zones” are not based on a scientific need or even endorsed by marine biologists working for the California Fish & Game. The will do harm to the local economy and industries that depend on revenues generated by fisherman. At a time when our state desperately needs jobs and tax revenue they are looking to take both away and actually create a huge expense to be paid by taxpayers to patrol and enforce these new closures. Guess who is financing this closure process – environmentalist who don’t give a damn about our local economies. Arnie the gov fails us once again doing his wife and eco campaign contributors a gift wrapped present at the expense of all Californians. Arnold will go down in history as the idiot governator of California.
There goes another one of our United States Constitutional rights. Doesn’t anyone care about THAT anymore?
How will the fish know that they are in a non-fishing zone when they are caught? Better to keep the fish out of those areas, so we can catch ‘em!
Will there be money set aside ( from fishing licenses ) to place signage underwater so the fish know they are swimming into a protected area?
I comment again but the some genius at OCR would just delete it again.
Gary- why didn’t you allow my post? I put in a lot of thought and you hurt my feelings.
THank you
I think this is a joke. Pollution is part of what has caused the decline in fish populations. How about we start there. When you have to put up signs so people wont enter the water, you know its bad for the fish. This organization is there to reap the cash and look good at the same time, nothing more.
Before restricting areas to fish, make sure the waters are clear and clean. Newport Harbor spews millions of gallons a day of toxic soup that impairs the turbidity (clearness), of the inshore waters. You can see this by how far out the kelp is growing back , and its in about 25-30 feet of water. The kelp use to grow in 45-60 feet of water right off of Corona Del Mar. This polluted toxic water comes from San Diego Creek and Delhi Channel, draining over 153 square miles of still being developed watershed! Preditor speicies of sea urchins need to be limited, which devour kelp. No kelp, less fish.
The MLPA’s work best in UNPOPULATED areas. The enviro’s get grants and seed/support funding to do this because Fish & Game didn’t have the funds? If they really meant business, they would stop the pollution to the coast before trying to save fish in polluted waters! Clean water and good education first, then lets save the fish.
I think the coastal areas should be afforded some protection from chronic, daily sport fishing which will eventually exhaust the local marine life. Makes sense to me.
Its not rocket science – too many people, taking too many fish for too long. If we don’t turn it around, our kids aren’t going to be able to fish anyway. I think its worth a shot to try to protect some areas. Its worked in Australia and I hear its starting to work at the Channel Islands. Talk to the lobster fishermen and they will tell you that the lobsters in the reserves at the Islands are getting bigger. Used to be that most of the ocean was like a big marine protected area since most of it wasn’t fished, but these days everyone has a fish finder and a GPS and there are no more secret spots. Let’s agree to give some of the ocean a break and prove that fishermen are conservationists.
This process is about protecting the health of the ocean and creating sustainable fisheries for the future. WE CAN’T AFFORD NOT TO DO SOMETHING. Current fisheries management is not working as it should be and we need to use additional tools, like marine protected areas, to help protect marine populations and ecosystems. And we need to use them now.
All over the world, marine protected areas have shown results: more fish and bigger fish, with spillover benefits to areas that are not protected. In MPAs, the ocean can build resilience to withstand increasing pressures, such as climate change, and can provide “insurance” that will contribute to sustainable commercial and recreational fishing.
The local and state economies of California depend on a healthy coastal environment to support fishing, tourism, recreation, education, science, restaurants, and other businesses. Creating marine protected areas, which will allow for the majority of the ocean in Southern California to remain open to fishing activities, is something that we as Californians must support to benefit our economy now.
MPAs are an investment in the future of our coastal waters. Regardless of the state of economy, we cannot afford to miss this opportunity.
Hey moderator – I made a grammatical error in my previous post. Could you please change the last sentence to read: “…we can not afford to miss this opportunity”
thanks.
I love fishing more than just about anything, but you know what I love the most? – fishing with my kids. Protecting some of these areas so there is something left for them in the future seems like a good idea to me. They are worth it. Kind of like a spare change jar- its just pennies now but it adds up over time. There is plenty of space out there, setting aside a tiny bit of it for our kids today so they can fish in the future makes good sense if you ask me.
Hello commenter Jenn. Fix made at your request — PB
How many of you cry for clean up of pollution but wont support tax increases or higher prices of products that are related to the pollution? I love fishing but you can see the huge decline of fish populations because of pollution and overfishing. Let these folks do their job and maybe there will be a way to work it all out.
Marine protected areas are a sound investment and safeguard a critical resource. The multi-billion dollar coastal tourism industry depends on a healthy ocean. We can’t wait until the economy recovers – fish populations are in serious decline and we must act now to reverse the damage. We must not miss this opportunity!
I am glad to see this process go forward. California has some of the greatest marine areas in the world and almost no protection for them. With the modern technology used by fishermen such as high resolution sonar, GPS units, high speed boats, and spotter planes, our fish stocks (and yes, the fish belong to all of us, not just fishermen) are being decimated. Closures for rockfish and elimination of salmon fishing for the second year in a row are just some of the evidence that our fisheries are in trouble. This is a perfect opportunity to create some places where fish will be protected at a level that allows our stocks to rebuild and ensure we have viable fisheries for the future.
This is an effort to regulate sportfishing, not protecting fish habitat. This effort is not conservation or preservation of fish habitat for future generations. This effort is to control, and eliminate a heathly industry and cause social economic harm. The State has not made any effort to build fish populations.The State only seeks to control a group of individuals. Take the money this commission is funded with and direct the funding to positive resources to build structure , reef and habitat that would support growing fish populations. California’s effort to create fish habitat is to tie Christmas trees to cinderblock and dump them in fresh water lakes and fund staff that absorbs anything else that the State would fund with a genuine effort to provide healthy fish populations.
ahh- there is a lot of misconceptions and misinformation flying around this discussion board! i know everyone gets fired up because of the states current budget issues and tries to reason that we should be spending the $ on something else… but come on folks! if there wasnt an OBVIOUS need for increased protection of our fragile marine resources then the state wouldnt have passed the leg to begin with! and thus is the beauty of public-private parternships to keep funding on track in a time such as this… and creative thinking and support from external groups and orgs, and the like.
anyone ever heard of the “shifting baselines” theory?? did you know 70% of socals kelp forests have VANISHED in the last 50 years? do you know what kind of AMAZING sea life there USED TO BE along our coastline, when this rich habitat provided for thriving, dynamic ecosystems?? Sorry John, there is no way this should be an effort to just restrict commercial fishing – that is ludicris! news flash – there is no big time comm fishing off socal anymore! Thank goodness for the diversity of interests involved in this MLPA process… but most of all thank goodness it is finally getting done!!! CA usually leads by example… this time we are finally catching up to some other more elightened countries (eg australia, belize)
Walter- I do not agree with you. I do not have a misconception of the MLPA, I know a lot about it. The partnership does include government money and resources. I spend 8 hours a week swimming under in the ocean holding my breath and looking at all of the sea life. It is healthy right now. There are tons of restricted areas in the OC already.
Commercial Fishing is present in the OC, I see them everyday. Lobsters, White Sea Bass, Sheepshead, Crabs, you name it. Want proof? Well, go down to Pearson’s Port and see what isn’t exported. Have you ever seen the Squid boats working the water at night infront of Newport? Well, they do and they slaughter the squid population every year right about now. That has an impact on the environment, you can’t deny that. Right now, the squid boats are out in La Jolla and Catalina working all night catching tons of squid to export.
I am a weekend fisher and the MLPA is trying to close off areas where most recreational fishing occurs. If successful, the MLPA will result in decreased fishing revenue and that will impact local businesses. With the state of our economy, the local ocean should be the last thing that the tax people’s money is spent on.
I welcome your comments Walter and I look forward to your response.
Bad timing… Back in ’81- ’82, you know, during the last Recession that was this bad, my older brother and sister would go fishing off the pier in Huntington Beach –for food. Those guys at the Hilton in Long Beach must be rolling in money or half out of their mind (or both) to be worrying about this kind of thing RIGHT NOW.
“Thoughts from above yeah, hit people down below. People in this world, we have no place to go.”
Tom, good point.
The state is going to decrease fishing areas without increasing wardens to enforce the restrictions or higher researchers to confirm the closers are working all due to the budget crisis.
That’s like buying a $500,000 house and worrying about how to pay the mortgage later. We know where that got us…
While there are obviously many factors influencing fish declines, that doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore one of the direct causes which is overfishing. We have “lived above our means” by fishing too hard for too long. My family has been in the fishing industry for years. Why don’t more people who make a living off the industry think about maintaining this way of making a living for the long term? If you want your kids to be able to fish some day, then we have to consider many options for maintaining fish, including protecting certain important marine areas.