Angry Fishermen Protest 3-Mile Marine Preserve Plan : Environment: Area from Dana Point to South Laguna would be off-limits to all commercial and sportfishing. Opponents say proposal would be ruinous.

More than a hundred angry fishermen told the state Department of Fish and Game on Wednesday night that a proposed three-mile-long marine preserve off-limits to all commercial and sportfishing would ruin their business.

The proposed preserve, which would extend along the coast from Dana Point to South Laguna, includes prime fishing area used by everyone from fishing charters to weekend fishing enthusiasts, several people told the state panel.

“It’s one more way the State of California is trying to ruin people’s jobs and scare business away,” said Ed Atkinson, owner of Dana Island Yachting, just before the public hearing. “If they establish this preserve, it’s going to really kill a lot of commercial fishing in this area.”

The preserve would strictly prohibit all fishing, along with harvesting of lobster and other sea life from the ocean bottom. However, recreational activities such as surfing and swimming would be allowed up to 1,200 feet from shore and boating would be permitted.

Only scientists who apply for research permits from the state Fish and Game Commission would be allowed below the ocean surface in the restricted area, Fish and Game officials said.

The furor has grown out of a 1990 state referendum, Proposition 132, that banned the use of gill nets off the coast of California. A little-known clause in the proposition called for the establishment of four marine preserves that would allow scientists to closely study undersea life.

Where to locate the preserves has been a headache for the Fish and Game Department, which has narrowed the possible sites to seven. The five-member Fish and Game Commission is expected to make a final decision in October.

Other locations being considered include a site between Palos Verdes Peninsula and Redondo Beach in Los Angeles County, Point Mugu in Ventura County, and four other places in Central and Northern California.

“People in Northern California want to see all of (the preserves) down here,” said Don Schultze, senior marine biologist for the Fish and Game Department. “Southern California folks feel they should be in less-populated Northern California . . . it’s been a very long and difficult process.”

Permission to use the relatively quiet coastal waters along Camp Pendleton was denied earlier this year by Marine Corps officials, who said the research area would interfere with training exercises.

The state agency has learned that banning all public use of the coastal waters draws the ire of everyone from beach-goers to surfers. So the South County preserve would allow swimming and surfing up to 1,200 feet from shore and give boats the right of passage through the preserve.

“The Surfriders Foundation has been very strong about making comments over where to put the reserves,” said Mary Larson, a Fish and Game marine biologist. “We’ve been trying hard to find locations with the least amount of impact on the public.”

But fishermen argue that the Dana Point/South Laguna site is heavily used by hundreds of local fishing enthusiasts, fishing charter boats and commercial businesses based in Newport Beach and Dana Point.

“It’s probably one of the worst sites possible because of all the (boat) traffic,” said Mike Hansen, vice president of Dana Wharf Sportfishing. “What kind of scientific research can you do when 200 to 300 boats pass over this place every day?”

The profusion of boats will also make the fishing prohibition almost impossible to enforce, many of the fishermen told the Fish and Game officials.

“There are probably thousands of boats that come from San Diego” to Newport Beach, said Mike Thompson, co-owner of Newport Sport Landing. “The local boats will know (about the fishing ban), but all these others won’t.”

Don Hansen, owner of Dana Wharf Sportfishing, said boats can fish south of Dana Point Harbor, “but the problem is that with all those boats concentrated in the south, we’ll play out the area. This ban would hurt us badly.”

Other fishermen, including charter operators, estimated they would lose at least 25% of their business or more.

The Dana Harbor boat owners were supported by Dana Point city officials and state Assemblyman Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside).

The fishing ban “is not commercially viable, it is not politically viable,” Morrow said. “I urge you to take (Dana Point/South Laguna) off the list.”

The preserve encompasses Salt Creek Beach, an enormously popular surfing spot. Local surfers said they aren’t sure that 1,200 feet would be enough room between surf and shore. But they also applauded the state’s effort to preserve the undersea ecology of the area.

“The good thing to this is that there might be a strong return of schools of fish,” said Bill Barnes, a member of the Doheny Longboard Assn. “Having a protected area would be nice because the beaches have been taking a hell of a beating from development.”