The California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously on Friday, April 13, to impose the largest network of Marine Protected Areas anywhere on the coast of the United States. The vote will result in the implementation of the “preferred alternative” that the Commission voted for in August 2006. This alternative sets up 29 MPAs representing approximately 204 square miles or approximately 18 percent of state waters (3 miles and less) along the Central Coast from Pigeon Point in San Mateo County south to Point Conception in Santa Barbara County. Approximately 8 percent (85 square miles) of the Central Coast would be designated as “no take” state marine reserves while the remainder would allow recreational and/or commercial fishing.

“With our action today, California has embarked upon something historic and extraordinary,” gushed Richard Rogers, president of the Commission. “With this vote, we have taken the first step to return our ocean waters to the place they used to be; an ocean full of sustainable abundance.”

Only Jim Kellogg, the lone Democrat and Davis appointee remaining on the Commission, expressed any reservations about his vote and the impact it would have on people's lives.

“People keep saying you need to time to get this process right, but this is right as it is ever going to get,” said a resigned Kellogg, “as much as I would have liked to see changes in the final package. There are people whose lives will be changed forever by this decision.”

During the August meeting, Kellogg and former Commission President Mike Flores called for a vote on the Fishermen's Package proposed by the California Fisheries Coalition.

However, the Schwarzenegger appointees, all of whom had been given marching orders by the Governor to vote for the more restrictive package because of the impending election, and Bob Hattoy opposed this package, even though it would have accomplished all of the goals of the MLPA (Marine Life Protection Act), while allowing anglers more areas to fish.

“We've reached the point where fishermen can now fish where there no fish,” he added, alluding to the fact that the reef zones where anglers traditionally fish for lingcod and rockfish composed a large percentage of the marine protected areas. “Maybe we will look at this decision years from now and conclude that this wasn't the right thing to do.”

Commercial and recreational fishing groups were upset that the MPAs imposed fishing closures on an already over regulated industry while not addressing the problems with water pollution, water diversions and the global warming of ocean water temperatures that have devastated many coastal fisheries.

The crafters of the final MPA package also did nothing to take into consideration the massive de-facto marine reserves that now exist along the entire California coast that are imposed by the federal government through the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

“This MPA decision may or may not help our fisheries,” said Zeke Grader, president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. “However, these MPAs fail to address the bigger issues of water quality and global warming. This package the Commission adopted is not something glorious. Relying on MPAs to save the fishery is like the French relying on the Maginot Line to stop the Germans in World War II.” “This will be devastating to the near shore commercial fishermen, particularly around Avila Beach and Morro Bay,” added Grader. “In other places along the Central Coast, the impact will depend upon the particular fishery.”

Jim Martin, West Coast Director of the RFA, blasted the Governor for pushing through this package as a cynical political move.

“When the commercial salmon season was impacted last year by Klamath River problems, the governor issued press releases and supported tens of millions of dollars in disaster relief," said Martin. "Will he now support disaster relief for the recreational fishing industry and family commercial fishing businesses that were needlessly harmed by the gimmick of Marine Protected Areas? This is a bad joke being played on the fishermen by the Governor.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council, The Ocean Conservancy and other environmental organizations were very pleased with the Commission’s decision. Many of the nearly 200 people that attended the meeting sported “Hold the Line” stickers on their clothing, urging the Commission to stick with the “preferred alternative.” “The Commission’s vote represents a balanced compromise, using high quality science to protect some of the Central Coast’s richest sites, our underwater Yosemites,” said Kate Wing, a policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “By investing in the ocean now, we can support fishing in the future.” “This decision provides a legacy of ocean protection for all Californians,” echoed Kaitilin Gaffney of the Ocean Conservancy.

The Coastside Fishing Club and United Anglers of Southern California supported a change to the preferred alternative that would have allowed fishing at Point Buchon, a popular fishing spot about 7 miles north of Morro Bay, for boating safety reasons.

“Closing Point Buchon to Morro Bay anglers is the equivalent of closing Duxbury Reef to Bay Area anglers,” said Ben Sleeter, board member of the Coastside Fishing Club. “It is the only close to port recreational fishing opportunity for the small boater. It is unfortunate that the Commission didn’t propose revisiting the closure at Point Buchon – it would have created a slight delay in the process, but it would’ve shown good faith on the part of the Commission.”

Hinting at possible litigation over adoption of the preferred alternative, Vern Goehring, manager of the California Fisheries Coalition, delivered a letter from James P. Walsh, the coalition’s lawyer, to the Commission. The letter systematically blasted the many deficiencies of the MPLA process, including the failure of the MPA proposal to place MPAs in the context of existing fishery management laws, regulations and policies.

“The Coalition remains interested in playing an active role in developing MPAs in California that integrate the entire array of marine science and California ocean policies and programs,” said Walsh. “To do so will require correcting the serious deficiencies in the first phase of the MLPA Initiative now pending before the Commission.”

Areas where MPAs will be imposed include Ano Nuevo Island, Soquel Canyon, Point Sur, Big Creek, Piedras Blancas, Point Buchon and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Many anglers have noted that the DFG, already short staffed because of a tight budget, will be hard pressed to enforce the no fishing zones when they go into effect.

The DFG, the lead agency charged with managing the state’s marine resources, will be responsible for implementing the MLPA program, including all enforcement and research and monitoring activities. The Central Coast MPA regulations will go into effect this summer after the appropriate filings with the Office of Administrative Law and Secretary of State.

The second regional process of the MLPA Initiative, the North Central Coast, which covers the area from Alder Creek in Mendocino County south to Pigeon Point in San Mateo County, was launched last month. For more information on the MPLA Process and the areas being closed to fishing, visit http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa.

My analysis: The Governor's purpose behind the MPAs appears to be to curry favor with corporate-funded environmental groups by supporting massive fishing closures without doing the hard work that is required to address the water quality problems that plague the Bay-Delta estuary and the California coast.

Arnold has effectively divided and conquered folks who should be working as allies - environmental organizations and fishing groups. Since rockfish and lingcod populations are coming back in huge numbers because of the PFMC regulations, the Governor and his staff can point to a victory whether or not the new MPAs actually work because of the obvious success of the current regulations!

At the same time that Governor is willing to impose MPAs on top of de-facto MPAs and restrictions, he is trying to push through an elitist process in the Delta parallel to the MLPA process whose end goal is to build a peripheral canal that will dramatically increase state and federal water exports to unsustainable corporate agribusiness and southern California.

Just like recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and Indian Tribes were marginalized in the “Blue Ribbon Task Force” process for the MLPA, they are also being completely marginalized in the “Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force" process that was initiated by the Governor this year. No recreational fishermen or Indian Tribes such as the Winnemem Wintu were originally included in the 41 member Delta stakeholders group that advises the Blue Ribbon Panel. Only after I sent out an action alert and others complained about this was a recreational angler appointed to the so-called "stakeholders" group.

It is no coincidence that the head of both the MPLA Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force is the same guy, Phil Isenberg. Just as Isenberg did a terrible job as the chair of the MPLA panel, he can be expected to do a horrendous job as the chair of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. The Governor will be leaning hard on the environmental groups that supported his cynical MPA process to embrace his plans to divert more water from the Delta by building a peripheral canal. Of course, he will say the purpose of the canal will be to “restore the ecosystem while insuring water supply reliability.”

However, anybody with a tiny bit of common sense knows that a peripheral canal being built at a time when the Delta food chain is in collapse will result in the extinction of the Delta smelt (down from 80,000 in 2001 to 30,000 today), spring run chinook, winter run chinook and other species.

If the Delta -Bay estuary continues to be destroyed, halibut, striped bass, herring, salmon, Dungeness crab and other fish populations will decline dramatically while the Governor and his staff will pat themselves on the back about how they “saved” California's coastal fisheries by kicking fishermen off the water. Am I the only guy who sees the connection between the MPLA and Delta Vision fiascos?