Gill-Net Foes Gain in Ballot Bid : Initiative: More than 150,000 signatures have been gathered for a vote on prohibiting the fishing method in coastal waters. The seafood industry opposes such a ban.

Gill-net fishing, under growing attack from environmentalists and others, was addressed on two fronts Thursday, as a statewide drive to prohibit the controversial fishing method moved into high gear.

Proponents of an initiative to extend a ban on gill-net fishing to Southern California coastal waters announced that they have gathered more than 150,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot in November, 1990.

Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress), the measure’s principal sponsor, said 950,000 signatures are needed by early May to qualify the initiative, which is opposed, in large part, by the commercial fishing and seafood processing industry.

Gill nets are narrow-weave devices that are weighted to extend upright in the water to catch fish by entangling their gills in the meshes.

The proposed ban would restrict the use of the monofilament nets within three miles of the coast from Point Conception to the Mexican border, and within a mile of any of the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara. The initiative would also make permanent a similar gill-net ban along the central and Northern California coast.

In Irvine meanwhile, a committee of scientists, economists and marine biologists held the first of three days of meetings to study the impact in outer-ocean waters of gill nets on marine mammals, particularly dolphins. The sessions are sponsored by the Washington-based National Academy of Sciences, which was contracted by the Commerce Department to issue recommendations later this year on changes in federal policy toward gill nets in U.S. waters.

On Thursday, much of the testimony focused on the potential impact of a gill-net ban on the tuna industry. In the open ocean, large schools of yellowfin often stick close to porpoises. As a result, the mammals often become entangled in the nets used to snare tuna. About 2.2 million tons of tuna are caught worldwide each year.

In Orange County, Allen started her initiative drive in mid-December after several legislative attempts to restrict the use of gill nets by “near-shore” fishermen failed. Last month, Assembly Bill 1, a package of gill-net restrictions introduced by Allen, was rejected by the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife, intensifying the lawmaker’s push to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

“The commercial fishing lobby is very strong, and it is time we take our cause to the people,” Allen told members of a Long Beach tuna-fishing club that donated $20,000 to the signature-gathering effort.

Allen estimated that it will cost about $350,000 to gather enough signatures, much of it going to a paid consultant coordinating the effort. So far, she said, the Committee to Ban GillNets has raised about $100,000.

Limits on the use of the fine-mesh nets have long been sought by sport fishermen and environmentalists, who say that fish populations are being depleted and that dolphins, seals and other marine mammals are being destroyed when they are inadvertently caught in the nets.

A year ago, state officials blamed gill nets for the deaths of more than 50 sea lions that washed ashore in Orange County during a three-week span.

“The time is now to once and for all to rid California’s waters of the destructive practice of gill-net fishing,” said Allen, an active gill-net opponent since 1984, even though her 71st Assembly District in western Orange County is landlocked. “It is cruel the way these mammals become entangled in this net and die.”

According to the most current figures available from the state Department of Fish and Game, 6,500 sea lions, harbor seals and porpoises were reported killed in gill and similar trammel nets in 1986-87.

Daniel Frumkes, a private Los Angeles biologist working with Allen’s initiative committee, said fishermen using nets have contributed to the near-elimination of the population of white sea bass off Southern California and have cut the number of halibut in local waters in half.

But industry spokesmen said Allen and others have exaggerated the depletion as well as the numbers of mammals killed by gill nets to rally support for the ban. They said such a ban would destroy a multimillion-dollar-a-year industry.

About 125 gill-net fishermen operate in Southern California, mostly out of San Pedro and Ventura harbors; many of those fish only in the zone one to three miles offshore.

Under Allen’s initiative, gill-net fishermen would be compensated financially for switching to hooks or other techniques if the ban passes and takes effect Jan. 1, 1994. The fishermen would be paid the equivalent of an average year’s catch with money raised from a new $3 marine-protection stamp that all sport fishermen would be required to buy annually in addition to a fishing license.

But Tony West, president of the San Pedro-based California Gillnetter’s Assn., said Allen’s “payoff would be merely a drop in the bucket” and would not cover the cost of converting small boats used for coastal fishing into vessels capable of longer-duration, open-ocean fishing.

“A number of guys who are in their 40s and 50s, who have been fishing all their life, would suddenly be out in the cold,” West said. “It would be tragic. We’d be the victims of a massive smear campaign.”

Seafood wholesalers also predicted that limiting gill nets would drive up the price of fresh fish--particularly halibut, white sea bass and shark--in local markets.

“If that ban goes through, prices will go sky high,” said Rob Ross, executive director of the California Fisheries and Seafood Institute, a lobbying group for fish processors. “It is a destructive kind of law that will only put people out of work.”

Staff writer Ted Johnson contributed to this report.

MARINE RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT

What is it? A proposed initiative for the November ballot that would, among other things, ban gill net fishing in Southern California coastal waters.

Proponents’ argument: Gill nets have significantly depleted populations of coastal fish, such as halibut and white sea bass, and killed scores of marine mammals including dolphins and sea lions that are inadvertently caught in the nets.

Opponents’ argument: Eliminating gill nets used to catch halibut, sea bass and shark will drive up the price of fresh seafood in local markets. They also dispute claims about the impact of gill nets on local fish and marine mammal populations.

Key provisions:

Prohibit gill net fishing beginning Jan. 1, 1994, within three miles of the coast from Point Conception to the Mexican border, and within a mile of any of the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara. Restricted areas would become known as Marine Resource Protection Zones.

Make permanent a similar gill net ban along Central and Northern California coast.

Compensate commercial fishermen for the loss of their gill net permits with money raised from a new $3 fee assessed sport fishermen through 1995. The new fee would be paid by the anglers in addition to their annual $11 fishing license.

Require the state Department of Fish and Game to establish four new “ocean water” ecological reserves off the California coast for marine research. The four areas would be identified by a special commission.

Require the Department of Fish and Game to monitor and evaluate the daily catch of commercial fishermen.

Principal author of the initiative: Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress).

Needed to qualify for the November ballot: About 950,000 signatures. Proponents say as of Feb. 1 about 150,000 signatures had been gathered.

Total cost of signature drive: $350,000. Proponents say as of Feb. 1 about $100,000 had been raised.