Fishermen Ordered to Pull Gill Nets

Three years after voters approved an initiative outlawing gill nets in California waters, commercial fishermen have been ordered to pull the nets from the sea, the measure’s supporters announced Friday.

Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress), author of the 1990 ballot measure, said a San Diego County Superior Court judge this week rejected pleas by the fishing industry for a temporary reprieve from the ban, which went into effect Jan. 1.

Allen and other backers of Proposition 132--which sought to protect sea lions and other marine mammals that can get snagged in the nets--also predicted that they will win a legal challenge by gill net fishermen that goes to trial April 1 in San Diego.

“The nets are out of the water, and for that we are very, very happy,” Allen said at a Capitol news conference. “This is a great day for marine mammals.”

But fishing industry officials said the fight is far from over and said the ruling Thursday by Judge Arthur W. Jones does not foretell the outcome of the trial.

“I don’t see what he said yesterday as having much bearing on what he’ll decide in two months,” said Peter H. Flournoy, attorney for the gill net fishermen. “Without question we’ll ultimately prevail.”

The fishermen contend that their opponents have overstated the effect of gill nets on dolphins, sea lions and whales in an effort to camouflage their true aim: to clear the ocean of the commercial fleet so sports anglers have a free run of the seas.

“Essentially what the sportfishermen want is their own playground in Southern California without commercial competition,” said Diane Plescher, manager of the California Seafood Council. In the meantime, she said, consumers will be hurt by the ban, which will reduce the amount of fish caught locally by 30%.

Gill net fishermen are destined for ruin, said Donna Panto of the Los Angeles Commercial Fisherman’s Assn. Shortly after voters approved the proposition, state officials counted about 500 gill net fishermen in California. Today, the number stands at a little more than 100.

“It’s devastation--that’s absolutely what it means,” she said. “Many of these people have have dedicated two decades of life into this, and they’re out of work.”

Proposition 132 backers note that the measure includes a buyout plan to compensate fishermen hurt by the ban. Moreover, they say any effect on the seafood market is far outweighed by the positive impact on marine mammals, birds and coastal fisheries.

Although commercial fishermen note that the state’s sea lion population has increased in recent years, the proposition’s supporters contend that many species of marine mammals are only just beginning to re-establish themselves after severe declines.

They also argue that the gill nets were stripping shallow coastal waters of many species of fish that eventually would have disappeared.