No-fishing zone likely off Laguna Beach
September 11th, 2009, 8:24 am · 22 Comments · posted by Pat Brennan, science, environment editor
A miles-long no-fishing zone off the Laguna coast appeared increasingly likely this week as a state-sponsored environmental initiative to protect sea life moved into the homestretch in Southern California. 
Three final proposals for the creation of new marine-protected areas from Point Conception to the Mexican border were revealed Thursday night in Los Angeles in the last of a series of marathon public meetings.
All three proposed maps marked out a significant portion of the Laguna coast in red, meaning off-limits to fishing — even the map drawn up by a group composed largely of fishing interests.
“That was a convergence spot,” Ray Hiemstra, of the environmental group, Orange County Coastkeeper, said of the Laguna coast.
And the three maps glimpsed Thursday won’t be made public for as long as two weeks (see portions of the maps in a video archive of meetings held Wednesday and Thursday.)
Still, a variety of new restrictions on ocean fishing off the Southern California coast appeared all but inevitable. The Laguna Beach coast has emerged as one of the most significant habitat areas targeted for protection in the region.
The mapping effort is the third of its kind under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, a state law passed in 1999 and revived in recent years with the help of funding from habitat conservation groups such as the Resource Legacy Foundation. Marine protected areas have been approved on the north central coast and the central coast under the public-private partnership; the San Francisco Bay area and the north coast are next on the list.
The idea is to prevent depletion of marine life by creating a system of protected zones. Larvae of fish and other creatures could disperse from one zone to the next, while a variety of species and habitats could thrive in each zone. A variety of new designations are possible, some that would limit fishing and others that would ban it altogether.
While protection zones already exist off the coast, some experts say they are often disjointed, with some too small to be effective. Part of the effort would consolidate existing reserves and arrange them to function as a network.
The “stakeholder” group that produced the maps this week has been working together for about a year. The group will meet once more with a blue-ribbon task force to refine the maps; in December, the task force is expected to present either one map, or several maps with one marked as the preferred version, to the Fish and Game Commission for what could be a lengthy approval process.
The stakeholders divided themselves into three mapping groups that neatly illustrate three prevailing sentiments: a mixed group representing a variety of interests, a group dominated by the fishing community and other “users” of ocean resources, and a group dominated by environmental activists and conservationists. 
R. Kevin Ketchum, general manager of California Yacht Marina and a leader of a mapping group that included strong representation by fishing interests, said he does not believe scientific evidence shows that fish along the Southern California coast are being depleted.
“The fisheries in California are the most protected worldwide,” Ketchum said. But the initiative is “a law. So it had to be done.”
(Register photo of Laguna coast by Leonard Ortiz.)
Related posts:
- No-fishing zone off Laguna: activists say protection is needed
- No-fishing zone off Laguna: O.C. fishermen fear economic harm
Latest posts:
google iphone app
bellingham high school
new york dailys
ford motor stock
israeli palestinian conflict
bac home loans
grand junction colorado
nordstrom promotion code
cincinnati water works
groupon houston
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.
- By posting your comment, you agree to allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to republish your name and comment in additional Register publications without any notification or payment.
22 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Things to do
-
-
-
-
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
The PEW foundation, the RLF and others have put some money up to ram this legislation through the stakeholder process. But there is NO budget to enforce this closure into perpetuity.
There is also no sound science to support it.
There is also verbeage in the law that would place these areas off limits to ANY HUMAN CONTACT!
That means No wading, NO swimming, NO surfing……NO tourists and NO reason to visit Newport, Huntington or Laguna.
From the DFG website under Marine Reserves:
Restrictions [36710(a) PRC]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.
AT THE RATE THE SAVERS OF THE OCEAN ARE GOING, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER GO TO MEXICO OR OREGON TO FISH. CALIF. HAS A FISH & GAME DEPT THAT IS SO POLITICAL DRIVEN BY “SAVE EVERYTHING GROUPS AND LEFT WINGERS” THAT THE BEST THINK YOU CAN DO IN THIS STATE IS NOT BUY A FISHING LICENSE. EVEN IF YOU DO, THE MONEY IS USED AGAINST THE SPORTMAN.
Thank You for pointing that little tid-bit of information out.Try and bring that up at a Scientific Advisory Team meeting,Blue Ribbon Task Force meeting or a Regional Stake Holder Meeting and you will get shot down from all sides.I have been trying to explain that provision for over a year to anyone who will listen,which is very few,and they still dismiss it as something that will never happen????? If I am no longer able to take my passengers to Laguna to fish I guarantee I will make sure no one gets to go swimming etc…. What is really amusing is it is all based on LIES,not science,simply lies.I guess I should say really SAD.
Michael Hansen
President
Dana Wharf Sportfishing
You really should get your facts straight before you start spouting off scare tactics and misinformation. fact of the matter is you are probably getting defensive and all heated up about something you dont entirely understand, and have not spent enough time learning about. There is an incredible amount of sound science that supports this legislatio- why dont you take a peak at the references of the regional profile? we are at a tipping point for the state of our marine ecosystems, and we must do what we can to protect them now for benefits in the long run. the sad thing is that people cant wait for anything anymore, we are a society of immediate gratification, thanks to credit cards and the internet. it takes decades for some marine species to grow old and large enough to even reporduce! there are rockfish that will live longer than you.where is your baseline?! ill bet you are one of those people who gets excited over catching a ten inch calico bass. what a sad state of affairs.
Second, the MLPA is NOT restricting any public access! While there is verbage in the act itself that would allow for that authority, there are NO AREAS in southern CA slated for special closures that would prohibit folks from entering the water. Those are reserved for extreme and necessary circumstances, like nesting grounds for endangered bird species in the central coast. In fact, if you were paying attention at all at the last BRTF, they formally announced that the MLPA will not prohibit public access anywhere in SoCal, and in fact one of the goals of the MLPA is to enhance and promote recreational use. Do your homework.
And another news flash- this legislation has been in place for 10 YEARS!! you had plenty of time to get ready for it and educate yourself on the issues.
This is an important and extraordinarily necessary measure. A small percentage of the coastline is not much at all to set aside as safe havens for thousands of other species we share this planet with.
That is ridiculous. We are over-run by crazy liberals and environmentalists.
http://www.beyondthemargin.net/2009/03/california-doctrine.html
If there were no restrictions on human greed or pleasure, you would not have a human race. There are thousands of hobbies and activities that one can take part in without having to kill or destroy something for kicks.
It is a shame that humans have decimated fish populations to the point where restrictions must be enacted, but that is exactly what has happened. Everyone who enjoys fishing points the finger of blame when something like this happens, when in fact anyone who fishes is part of the collective damage that has been done.
@Sarah: MANY anglers, myself included, practice catch and release specifically for this purpose. We enjoy fishing, and one simply cannot fish if there are no fish left. We’re not looking to kill off and destroy the game we love to chase, as you seem to think. In fact, I’d be willing to bet you that the average angler is more conscientious than others when it comes to preserving and maintaining a healthy population of fish and their surrounding habitat.
I agree with you that it is a shame that CERTAIN humans, read the Japanese, are taking more fish than the environment can sustain, but putting a ban on shore fishing / diving / snorkeling will do nothing to solve that problem.
It seems to me that this whole piece of legislation is aimed at keeping lower class people out of upper class neighborhoods, especially in light of the homeless in Laguna scandal of late.
/soapbox
Really the problem is not fishermen nor is it an angler. It is in fact poachers who give us a bad name. Pollution is killing the fish. Nothing else.
Sarah, the Fringe left, you are just as bad as the Birthers, and people who kept their kids home from Obama’s back to school speech.
There is such thing as a sustainable fishery, and responsible management. It is not all or nothing, perhaps, you need to enroll in an ecology class.
Shame on you for being so closed minded, as the people you likely despise!
More left wing nonsense. All these programs do is hurt the state and its residents. Look at all the social programs that California runs. Then take a look at the state’s financial crisis. What the hell is happening to this place? California was once one of the best places in the world to raise a family, run a business, and even spend retirement. We need to take back our state. Or leave…
rdrrm8e says:
September 11, 2009 at 9:31 amThe PEW foundation, the RLF and others have put some money up to ram this legislation through the stakeholder process. But there is NO budget to enforce this closure into perpetuity.
There is also no sound science to support it.
There is also verbeage in the law that would place these areas off limits to ANY HUMAN CONTACT!
That means No wading, NO swimming, NO surfing……NO tourists and NO reason to visit Newport, Huntington or Laguna.
From the DFG website under Marine Reserves:
Restrictions [36710(a) PRC]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.
Post Reply
BeyondTheMargin.net says:
September 11, 2009 at 9:45 amThat is ridiculous. We are over-run by crazy liberals and environmentalists.
http://www.beyondthemargin.net/2009/03/california-doctrine.html
Post Reply
Sarah says:
September 11, 2009 at 9:53 am
If there were no restrictions on human greed or pleasure, you would not have a human race.
What the heck does that mean????
There are thousands of hobbies and activities that one can take part in without having to kill or destroy something for kicks.
It’s not for you to decide what hobbies people have. And to assume we kill things for kicks is lunacy.
It is a shame that humans have decimated fish populations to the point where restrictions must be enacted, but that is exactly what has happened.
Really…?!?! And your evidence is…???
Everyone who enjoys fishing points the finger of blame when something like this happens, when in fact anyone who fishes is part of the collective damage that has been done.
You really need to get a clue.
Sorry for the double post. Don’t know how that happened.
This mlpa is a joke,
How can the recreational fisherman be blamed for a so called coastal fishery collapse. That is an atrocious deception. Most recreational fisherman are catch and release. Including me…
The mlpa does nothing to protect or increase sustainability…
It does nothing for migratory species…
It does nothing to address commercial harvesting of migratory species.
What about “size slot limits” or “seasonal species spawning restrictions” or live bait restrictions or barbless hooks??
Why not continue and increase fish hatcheries? this has the brought white sea bass population back to healthy
Why throw tens of millions of dollars to create and enforce this, without exploring and utilizing known methods of actual rehabilitation, or traditional methods of species control.
Why have these options not been exercised?
These options have proven to be successful throughout the world?
BOTTOM LINE ITS NOT ABOUT SAVING FISH OR INCREASING OUR FISHERIES,
Not only do I not litter, I pick up trash from my kayak every time I see it, most off this trash seems to be from picnics around the harbors and beaches.
CONSERVATION NOT CLOSURES
Great to see such a lively discussion, but commenters please remember no personal attacks, including those against other commenters.
Its hard not to when some people are so ill-informed about a subject that wouldn’t even harm them. If these people spent half the time we do on or in the water they would realize that our fishery is in pretty damn good condition. Like mentioned earlier: there isn’t enough enforcement in the current area as it is now, imagine what it would be like with the closures. A complete shut down of the area would kill local businesses that have been there for decades like Newport Landing, Davey’s Locker, Dana Wharf Sportfishing and many of the local tackle stores.
There are currently no depleted or endangered fish species in the area: When pressed, the Department of Fish and Game could not name one fish species that was depleted.
The plan ignores fisheries management as an effective tool for preventing overfishing: The array of reserves should not be a surrogate for fisheries management. If there is over-fishing, then the Department of Fish and Game is not doing its job.
The cost is unsustainable at the current estimate of $30-40 million: The State is essentially bankrupt. The Department of Fish and Game admits is currently does not have the resources to manage the huge array of closures. The net effect is that honest fishermen will stay out of reserves, but poachers will not.
Recreational fishermen that pay state license fees to fish for consumption should have the right to consume the best quality fish available to them: These closures appear to be designed to completely shut down fishing activities based on ideology instead of reasonable protection in view of social/economic impact to the public.
These closures, which occur underwater, will not increase tourism to the area since most tourists do not go on the water or in it to recreate except to fish: Swimmers, surfers, and boaters will never see any effects of these reserves, only fishermen and divers.
We as fishermen should not be expected to pay for the management of waters we have no access to: We will not pay for this alone, we expect that the funding must come from the general fund and the public as a whole.
None of the other contributors to habitat and fish declines besides fishing are addressed: Water Pollution
Water Temperature Changes Boat Anchoring
Resurgence of marine mammals, sea lions and sea otters
Ocean Acidification
Pollution from coastal streams
Pollution from Electrical plants and Desalination plants
By closing large areas to fishing, those areas that are not closed will receive more pressure thus causing the type of damage the act seeks to prevent. The proposed closures are the majority of excellent fishing areas. The same amount of fishermen will be crowded into areas with minimal habitat and fewer fish, damaging the already extremely fragile areas. This is counteractive to the goals of the MLPA.
There is only one peer-reviewed scientific study produced by the MLPA science team: This study by Dr. Ray Hilborn shows that California’s fisheries are the second least exploited in the World, behind new Zealand. California and New Zealand are the only two that have substantially healthy fish stocks. The study recognizes that the fish stocks are recovering beautifully on their own through well managed size and count limits, and MPA’s are expensive, unproductive and unnecessary.
The MLPA Process has the power to restrict your public access: Restrictions [36710(a) PRC]: “While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.” This means that your access to MPAs may be taken away!
Too bad to see the typical misimformation from the fishing community following a very accurate article. The MLPA will not restrict any access to the water in Southern California , including diving, surfing, boating anchoring ect. That has been made very clear in spite of the obscure part of the law quoted. Also to say that our marine ecosystem is in good shape is a laugh. All of our fish stocks are depeleted (look up the definition of the word) and many are in bad shape in spite of not being listed as “overfished” (which means over 80% of the fish stock is gone, a disaster in any other industry)by the PMFC. The bigger issue is not fish but the entire marine ecosystem the the MLPA is designed to protect. The reduced fish and invertebrate stocks we have are affecting the other creatures that depend on them for food (such as marine mammals and birds) or as predators (sea urchins). The result is a out of balance ecosystem that is nowhere near as productive or resiliant as it should be. This puts the entire ecosystem at a greater risk of collapse. The MLPA will create places where the entire ecosystem can recover and become important safety zones for our overtaxed marine resources.
The whole idea of ocean protection–which is a lot like land conservation–is to set aside key areas before fish and habitats are completely depleted. There have been plenty of studies that show west coast fisheries are struggling: revenues are down and fish are getting smaller. Rather than waiting until local anglers are out of business, California is taking a proactive approach with the MLPA. If done properly, marine protected areas will actually improve fishing and keep it sustainable over the long haul. And for everyone who is suggesting this is some sort of right wing conspiracy, maybe you should check out the footage from yesterday’s meeting: 2.5 hours of public testimony from teachers, scientists, city councillors, urchin fishermen, the whole gambit. Everyone gets to have their say, and the whole point is to create a balanced plan that will benefit all Californians. As important as they are, fishermen are not the only stakeholders–us divers (and surfers, tidepoolers, birders, swimmers, etc) care about the ocean too!
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken
The MLPA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
When the Marine Life Protection Act was passed in 1999, it was slated to cost the taxpayers $200,000 a year. Current estimates are between 30-55 million dollars per year. There is NO funding mandated for the act.
This state is in the midst of an economic crisis. State employees are forced to take furlough days because we cant pay them. This week we get to find out how many of our state parks you wont be able to take your children to (they will be closed because we dont have the money to fund them). Home foreclosures, rising unemployment, and growing debt…..we CANT afford this. It is not just the millions of dollars that we dont have, it is the economic impact of destroying the lives of countless small business owners and their families who rely on the fisheries and the income generated by them.
We CAN’T AFFORD the closures!!!
The California Department of Fish and Game (the ones who would be tasked with enforcing these MPAs is even AGAINST them). MPAs do not address pollution, the real cause of damage to our environment. Fisheries management is best accomplished by size/slot/bag limits and seasonal closures NOT by MPAs! Take a look at the White Sea Bass and the outstanding comeback this fish has made.
Conservation, not closures!!!
The MLPA was hijacked sometime ago by the special interest groups
and environmental radicals. The MLPA is currently backed by the The Moore foundation, and PEW Trust. Surprise, surprise, they were some the backers of the act which just got surfers and beachgoers BANNED in Hatteras, NC off many of their favorite surfing beaches… for protection of birds. Not because the birds were harmed, or their nests destroyed, but because the surfers were DISTURBING them in their natural habitat. Yep; you surf in front of the bird, and he flies away. You disturbed him, and so you need to be OUT of the area so as not to disturb the bird.
Wake up people. It is time to take back your country from the special interest groups and lobbyists. Call/ write your legislators. Tell them you DO NOT support the MLPA process. Conservation NOT closures. Do something now, before they take away even more of your rights or the rights of your children. There is still time….barely.
Environmentalism is like so many other religions. Faith based, relying on the words of others rather that first hand knowledge. Believing in things you have never seen or touched and trying to convert others to your beliefs.
Recreational fisherman have been the stewards of inshore fisheries since man decided to eat a fish. It is our passion, our hobby and a source of protein for our families. Unless you have paid for a boat, outfitted a boat, learned how to reas the weather, the ocean and the tides, researched your prey, hunted it successfully and either taken enough for the dinner table or just released all that you caught you cannot imagine what is in the ocean or the health or sustainablilty of that.
And if you think that our goal would ever be the decimation of ANY species you are just plain ignorant. It’s in our best interest and the core of ourhearts to keep the fishstocks alive and well.
If you think Political Lobby groups like PEW, Packard and the RLF are concerned at all about the fishstocks then you are truly an ignorant zealot.
See you in court.
Hi Everyone,
I was born in So. Cal., raised here, and continue to live here. I am also a dedicated and respondsible fisherman, boater, diver meaning that I only take what I want from my ocean. I completely respect my ocean !! As a child, I was first introduced to fishing and boating with my grandfather. He, not the state, taught me how to fish. He taught me about catch and release, barbless hooks, and only taking what I want and not disturbing the rest, long before it was enforced.
When you stand on the shore and look out over our vast Pacific ocean on a clear beautiful So. Cal day, count the number of (only)fishing boats that you see on the water and you will realize that the waters are not overcrowded with fishing activity, compared to how vast our ocean is. The ocean will take care of itself. The fish are only a part of the ocean and, therefore, we need to help the fish.
A perfect example of helping the fish is the White Seabass Rehab. Program in Huntington Harbor right next to the lifeguard station. As a child, I never caught a white seabass. Now, I can catch one. Why ? Because we have learned to manage this fish and it has shown a huge comeback thanks to our local fishermen respecting, managing and conserving this species.
If you tell me not to fish for a certain species, that’s OK by me because I know that I am helping to conserve the species. If you tell me that I can not fish in certain areas, then I will fish in others, as well as the other fisherman, and we will be putting more pressure on smaller areas instead of spreading it out over a larger area. I would be happy to support an effort, through my other fishing buddies and on a local level, stressing conservation and protection……..rather than the state tell me what to do. I would set up a website asking my locals to conserve and protect. I would start local meetings to pass the word on. And how much money would all this take ?? $30-50 million……….NOT !! We could do the same thing for LOTS less. Let’s save some money.
I agree we NEED conservation !! Not closures.
And who would know better about the fish stocks than the Captains/Operators of the fishing landings like Mike Hansen,President Dana Wharf Sportfishing. Any sportfishing boat has the best prospective on fish stocks and depletion as they see it over the years, not just one scientific study or opinions.
Also, the higher fuel prices will keep alot of fisherman off the water for a while.
If you want my local and well informed opinion, CONSERVATION is what we need to focus on, not shutting it down. Our future is all about CONSERVATIONISM !! We need to sow a sustainable environment to ensure our future reapings from it.
We are entitled to our ocean as humans and through our constitution.
Question: So, tell me again why do I need to buy a fishing license ?? The money supports ME how ??
Answer: I do that myself. It’s called respect for my environment.
Dan
Local surfer, fisherman, boater, diver and ocean lover !!
I would like to know definitively whether Kayaking and diving will be restricted under any of the three options, or under what specific circumstances these could be restricted?