Ban ‘Walls of Death’ From Our Coastal Waters : Proposition 132: Gill nets provide only a fraction of our edible fish, but do tremendous damage to other marine life.

Our coastal waters belong to all Californians and we all share responsibility for the stewardship of their resources. Proposition 132, the Marine Resources Protection Act of 1990, will go a long way toward ensuring that future generations can continue to enjoy its abundant life.

Proposition 132 would ban gill nets, a destructive and indiscriminate type of fishing gear, within three miles of our shores and around the Channel Islands, and make permanent the current bans in Northern and Central California.

Gill-netters aim to catch halibut, white sea bass, white croaker and some angel shark, but up to 72% of what they ensnare is not marketable and is thrown overboard dead. These nearly invisible monofilament nets, larger versions of which are used in international waters, are referred to as “walls of death” because they entangle and painfully kill thousands of mammals such as whales, dolphins, sea otters and sea lions. More than 100 species of sea life are affected. Gill-netting is equivalent to strip-mining the sea or clear-cutting the ocean.

Scientists, marine biologists, economists, sport fishermen, divers, environmentalists, conservationists, animal-rights groups and outdoor writers have for five years strongly supported a state legislative ban on gill nets. But powerful lobbyists representing the commercial fishing industry have garnered enough votes from the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee to kill it. The only avenue left was to go to the people with Proposition 132.

Why go with a constitutional amendment rather than an initiative statute? In the past, other initiative statute proponents have seen their hard work go for naught because their propositions were overturned in our state courts on a constitutional technicality. Or the Legislature changed or refused to enact them at all. If Proposition 132 is part of our Constitution, the will of the people will hold.

The ocean provides both quality of life and economic value. It attracts tourism and manufacturers of water recreation gear who provide jobs and income.

Gill-netters claim that Proposition 132 is sponsored by rich, greedy sport fishermen with yachts who want the ocean for themselves. But wealthy sportsmen rarely fish within our three-mile limit. And only commercial fishermen make money from our fish. The support base for Proposition 132 goes far beyond sport fishermen.

Gill-netters also claim that Proposition 132 will raise the price of fish, even though they conceded in public debate that the $3.2-billion-per-year industry imports 85% to 90% of the fish sold in California. Gill-netters catch less than 2% of our fish within our three-mile limit. Under Proposition 132, fees paid by all fishermen would support their switch to less destructive gear.

We Californians have a responsibility to remove these deadly and very replaceable nets from our own back yard.