they might be back some day.

[driftwood]

In case you missed it. The fight is not over yet Lets all be there on the next round! I hope the picture below motivates you!




Panel backs no-fishing zones off Southern California coast

At an emotional meeting, a state panel imposes the landmark restrictions to help restore species, catches of which have dropped up to 95%. The plan was forged out of contentious negotiations.

Darci Conner hugs Sarah Sikich of Heal the Bay after the state blue-ribbon panel approves fishing restrictions off the Southern California coast. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times / November 10, 2009)

• Related
• Points of view

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.

---

FOR THE RECORD:
Fishing ban: An article in Wednesday's Section A about a state blue-ribbon panel approving fishing restrictions off the Southern California coast incorrectly attributed this quote to Sarah Lester: "I've got mixed feelings. Some key areas like Point Dume were protected. But I'm concerned they overlooked scientific guidelines in places like Palos Verdes Peninsula." The quote should have been attributed to Sarah Sikich, coastal resources director for the environmental group Heal the Bay. Lester, project scientist with the Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara, is not affiliated with Heal the Bay. —

---

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.

---

FOR THE RECORD: An article in Wednesday's Section A about a state blue-ribbon panel approving fishing restrictions off the Southern California coast incorrectly attributed this quote to Sarah Lester: "I've got mixed feelings. Some key areas like Point Dume were protected. But I'm concerned they overlooked scientific guidelines in places like Palos Verdes Peninsula." The quote should have been attributed to Sarah Sikich, coastal resources director for the environmental group Heal the Bay. Lester, project scientist with the Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara, is not affiliated with Heal the Bay.

---

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."

[Gino]

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."

yeah look at the maps bitch where was the give, all taking based on the facts aquired by common sense. How is she disapointed? what a bunch of pigs.

that bitch is out of touch... She should be the director of private interest, loyybing and politics, not Stanfords enviormental/ resources law.

[Matt]

@#$#@ you, you $%^&$#@ #$%* %#&*$!!!!! Fill in the blanks ya got my drift!!

[Tman]

I think I saw Meg at the supermarket the other day, complaining about the plastic wrap job on the fish she was gonna buy...

She was unhappy, thought the plastic wrap was too tight...

[The Kid]

They're not gonna stop me i don't care what they say we'll see what happens. I do not think they are going to have anyone enforce it. I mean who enforces the current MPA. Haha i hope they read this, can't wait to see them out there. I don't care if i set a bad example, I am to young to care. So f*** the law i will still be catching yellows and white seabass. If I get fined i hope it gets put in the paper so all those who have no idea what is going on can see that we are getting SCREWED. Peace

[esdees]

"Populations of lobster, sea urchin, squid, sea bass, yellowtail and swordfish have all been in sharp decline."

Really? Where did they come up with that?

[Tman]

That "95%" number is a riot...make it more credible, say "94%"...

I call BS, let's see the data to support that.

As I said at one of the meetings, about 12 years ago, had a buddy catch a 42.5# WSB...he put it on the radio, and people were at the landing to see it. A very rare catch indeed, back then.

BACK THEN

With the success of the hatchery program, that WE help pay for, they have made a remarkable recovery...we all know that.

What's next, are they gonna say, oops, we didn't mean to include WSB as part of the decline?

Hey enviros...when you have a friend come in from out of town, and you go out to dinner, and supposing they order fish, tell us that you do give them the same kind of wrath that you give us...

[tylerdurden]

Originally Posted by Tman

That "95%" number is a riot...make it more credible, say "94%"...

I call BS, let's see the data to support that.

As I said at one of the meetings, about 12 years ago, had a buddy catch a 42.5# WSB...he put it on the radio, and people were at the landing to see it. A very rare catch indeed, back then.

BACK THEN

With the success of the hatchery program, that WE help pay for, they have made a remarkable recovery...we all know that.

Actually, I don't think the hatchery program has much if anything todo with the wsb return. Based on the numbers they get so few heads back each year that they are having a minimal impact if any. I know not everyone turns in the heads, but still they get so few back, and it is costing them thousands of dollars per head returned if I did the math right. Someone else might have the cost per seabass returned number. Releasing all the hatchlings into the ocean can't be a bad thing, but I just don't think it is helping as much as we think, or hope it is.

I do agree that wsb are on the return, because of the gillnet ban within three miles. They changed the rules and regs and management of the species, and it worked. I wish they could use this example, instead of the crap they are trying to pull instead.

[Billy V]

I can only respect a process that was based on "sound scientific data".
Its was obvious the MLPA was Not, and it is obvious the process was bought, and so were the people running it.

-For a Reserve to work, you must first gain the respect of the people.
-They failed miserably in this area.

[T Bone]

Next will be the major licence fee increase.I dont see any way around that.I really liked the old salt water only licence for half the price.Now,we all pay for trout plants whether we want to or not.

[Matt]

I have never minded the increasing of a licensing charge, as I always felt if it helped out enforcement for the DFG officers and protected us all from people poaching it was OK by me, gotta admit I will probably cringe a bit about it nowadays

[Flatinfifth]

Well it's happened. Exactly what I was afraid of, has come to pass. The end result of a state governmental structure that has without hesitation moved towards a dictatorship of the mindless masses. We, those that cherish freedom were asleep at the switch years ago. They snuck up on us and before we knew it, they were dictating what we should do because "they know better". Never mind that their scientific "data" is non-existent and that which is presented is the product of junk science (see the similarity with Mr. Gore's movement?). It's big government and state-guided "goodness" at its finest; ramrodding their political ideology and beliefs down the throats of non-vocal yet kind and good citizens. The beginning of a statist cult is in the making. The People's Republic of California......

I'm afraid that the state is lost. The demographics combined with a complete and thorough dumbing down of the masses has led to a constituency that is easily led.........just promise them games in the arena and free bread (can you say welfare, food stamps, etc.??) Those in charge today of the state's political aren are the most clearly defined example of a corrupt "people's republic" that I have seen to date in this country.

What do we do now?? Pitch forks at the gates?? Rebellion at the polls?? Problem is that sportsmen and those that thrive and understand the outdoors are the minority. Just watch any shore fishing party take fish nowdays on both ocean and lake shores. Watch them..........they take EVERYTHING. Yet these people are under the radar but they represent the vast majority of those illegally harvesting massive numbers of fish. They are out in private boats as well. Those that fish often know exactly what I speak of. So sports fishermen who take but a few fish per trip (Most fishermen I know practice catch and release with perhaps the harvesting of one fish for that day's dinner), will now have to fish ............. where?????

I'll let the chips fall where they may for now. It is not a pretty outcome and sadly, the future looks even uglier. Perhaps it's time to move and this time defend another state. America was built on values and principles of virtue that are being trampled on daily by the current federal and state administrations. God help us.

Something must and will be done.