Judge Rejects Suit Seeking to Allow Gill-Net Use : Ruling: Dismissal in Superior Court upholds 1990 initiative outlawing the practice in Southern California coastal waters.

A Superior Court judge Friday dismissed a lawsuit that would have allowed Ventura County gill-net fishermen to resume using the nets.

The dismissal in San Diego County Superior Court upholds the 1990 initiative that bans gill nets in Southern California coastal waters.

A handful of the 60 or so Ventura-based gill-netters attended the packed hearing in San Diego, said Hank Hubble, a local gill-net fisherman who has not fished since the ban took effect in late December.

“A few of the guys thought we might win,” he said. “I knew there wasn’t much of a chance though, and actually I’m kind of glad it’s over. Now I can try to figure out what to do next.”

Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress), the ban initiative’s major sponsor, called the ruling by Superior Court Judge Arthur W. Jones a victory for the coastal environment.

“I’m so delighted that it’s over,” she said. “We can finally start to concentrate on enforcing the ban and protecting our marine resources.”

In 1990, California voters passed Proposition 132 banning the use of coastal gill nets, which are anchored to the ocean floor and stretched out like volleyball nets for several thousand feet. The fishermen target halibut, white sea bass, barracuda, yellowtail and other species.

Sponsors of the ban argued that the nets indiscriminately killed marine mammals, such as dolphins and sea lions. They termed the gill nets “killing machines,” saying the nets also killed many species of fish that could not be used and so were thrown away.

Larry Goldenhersh, attorney representing the sponsors of the ban and the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute, said the ruling should please “all Californians interested in protecting marine mammals (and) conserving the marine resources of California.”

Fishermen have said the campaign waged against the small gill net industry unfairly associated their work with large tuna seine and gill-net fisheries that have wreaked havoc on deep water fish stocks.

In their lawsuit to overturn the ban, they contended that the campaign was misleading. One of the more dramatic television commercials in support of Proposition 132 showed a tuna seiner snaring porpoises, the gill netters noted in their suit.

However, Judge Jones ruled that both sides had ample time during the political campaign to put forth evidence and challenge the other side’s claims.

“What kind of justice is it when the judge won’t even hear the case,” said Brian Jennison of the Ventura County Fishermen’s Assn. “They used guilt by association, taking footage from Third World countries’ tuna fishing fleets and showing them on the television ad campaigns. That’s not right.”

Peter Flournoy, the attorney representing the California Gillnetters’ Assn. said he may file an appeal.

Times staff writer Tony Perry contributed to this story.