The California Fish and Game Commission conducted a 12 hour public hearing in Sacramento on August 2 to discuss the addition of a new network of marine protected areas (MPAs) to the state’s Central Coast region through the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, drawing commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, and representatives of environmental groups from throughout the state to support or oppose different MPA packages.

The Commission is reviewing five MPA proposal packages, including a no-project alternative, and is slated to make its final selection by November 2006. The proposals include Package 1, the “fisherman’s package” and the least restrictive; Package P, the “Preferred Alternative” of the Department of Fish and Game; and Packages 2R and 3R, the more restrictive packages proposed by environmental groups.

The highlight of the hearing was when the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC), a wide ranging coalition of commercial and recreational fishing groups, presented a commissioned, scientific peer review report that shows that restrictions in three of the five proposed packages will needlessly suffocate California’s $5 billion commercial and recreational fishing industry. I have attended a lot of presentations by scientists on fishery and environmental issues - and this was one of the best I’ve ever heard

Dr. Carl Walters, a Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation and one of the three scientists that conducted and authored the study, disclosed his findings to the Commission in a very clear and concise power point presentation. Dr. Walters and his fellow scientists found that each of the packages before the CFGC would benefit California’s marine species about equally.

Walters said that three proposals recommend closing 40 percent or more of the most productive fishing grounds, leaving Package 1 as the only proposal that integrates California’s strong existing protections with systems to monitor effectiveness.

“Our effort is not to derail the process – we’re staunch conservationists,” said Walters. “However our conclusion is that the SAT Team did not use the best available science in its report. Please understand that your decision will have a major impact on people’s lives and the local economy.”

The CFC’s peer review says that the MLPA Science Advisory Team (SAT) guiding the MLPA Initiative failed to consider impacts to the marine environment from sources other than fishing. Examples of other sources include climatic variation, non-point source pollution and coastal development.

“Therefore, the MLPA Initiative solely relies on new fishing restrictions to meet conservation goals,” according to the peer review. “The advice failed to consider the benefits of existing fishery-management restrictions to the marine environment and assumes that existing fishery protections are nonexistent or ineffective in keeping ecosystems healthy and sustaining species populations. Further, the review shows that the advice virtually ignores that an expansive network of MPAs would have a significant ecological impact from shifting fishing effort and a seriously detrimental impact on Central Coast economies, affecting hundreds of businesses and thousands of individuals.”

The CFC’s peer review concludes that “the assumptions and guidelines produced by the SAT are flawed and therefore, any MPA network developed using those guidelines would offer only the illusion of additional protection for marine resources. The MLPA science advice failed to meet two central requirements of the Act. First, MPA’s and fishery management must be ‘complementary components’ of efforts at marine protection. Second, the ‘best readily available science” must be used in designing MPAs.”

Package 1, the “fisherman’s alternative,” is the result of an unprecedented partnership between Central Coast fishing interests and marine scientists. The system of MPAs presented in Package 1 takes into consideration existing ocean policy, regulations, protections, and socio-economic impacts and their related costs.

The passionate testimony by anglers to get the commission to approve the least restrictive package resulted from the collision of two regulatory regimes – a state law, the Marine Life Protection Act, that proposed more MPAs in light of declining groundfish and other fish populations – and a federal regulatory process through the Pacific Fishery Management Council that has already resulted in de-facto closures of much of the ocean.

Because of huge turnout by recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and representatives of environmental groups, the hearing went from 10 am until 10 pm. Commercial and recreational fishermen showed unity in urging the Commission to adopt the least restrictive MPA package.

Recreational fishing groups whose representatives appeared before the Commission in support of Package 1 included the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Golden Gate Fisherman’s Association, Sportfishing Association of California, United Pier and Shore Anglers of California, Coastside Fishing Club and United Anglers of Southern California (UASC). Recreational anglers and charter boat skippers from Crescent City to San Diego testified as to the severe impacts that all of the alternatives other than Package 1 would have on their lives and the local economies. Mike LaRocco of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, in requesting support of Package 1, appropriately described it as the “working man’s package

Anglers felt like they are victims of “double jeopardy,” having to endure unprecedented fishing closures in the ocean by the state and federal governments while facing even more potential closures by advocates of no-take zones.

The Ocean Conservancy, NRDC and the Otter Project urged adoption of Package 2R. “The MLPA gives the Schwarzenegger Administration a historic chance to change the way oceans are cared for, creating the equivalent of wildlife refuges and parks in the sea,” said Warner Chabot of The Ocean Conservancy. “Marine reserves and other protected area are working all over the world; they increase the number and diversity of sea creatures and let fish grow large and become more productive.”

However, in the testimony that I heard during the meeting from no-take zone advocates, they seemed oblivious to the fact that much of the ocean is already cordoned off as de-facto marine reserves. For example, you can only fish for groundfish in 0 to 180 feet water now, while it was 0 to 120 feet for several years.

“Our disgust with the process is that the environmental groups are losing sight of the bigger picture, including offshore drilling plans, water quality and other issues, with all of the effort being directed towards marine reserves,” said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast of Fishermen’s Federations. “Contrary to what they say otherwise, marine reserve advocates aren’t talking about anything other than imposing increasing fishing restrictions on commercial and recreational fishermen. MPAs may have some value, but they have relatively little impact compared to the bigger fishery problems that we face now.”

The Commission members made no decision on marine protected areas during the meeting. However, anglers will have their last chance to weigh in on the alternatives during the special meeting of the Fish and Game Commission scheduled in Monterey on August 15. The meeting will begin at 10 am at the Monterey Beach Resort, 2600 Sand Dunes Dr.

During the meeting, the Commission will receive the DFG’s analysis of possible changes to its preferred alternative (Package P) and consider and possibly approve the draft master plan for Central Coast Marine Protection Area and CEQA alternatives.