Biting Back

Jim Colomy motors along on his pristine lobster boat, checking out the best fishing spots in the waters off the majestic Channel Islands.

There is the cove off Anacapa Island where lobster fishermen have always sunk their traps. And a stretch of water off San Nicolas Island is Colomy’s personal favorite.

But these prime fishing spots could one day be off-limits--restricted by measures intended to protect the sea life there.

Arguing that commercial fishermen are contributing to the depletion of the ocean’s resources, scientists, environmentalists and some sportfishermen want to give the ocean a chance to recover.

In a proposal before the state Fish and Game Commission, the advocates hope to prohibit fishing in about 20% of the waters surrounding the Channel Islands. A bill before the state Legislature would put teeth into these “no-take zones,” the underwater equivalent of wildlife preserves.

The reaction from those who make their living along the islands off Ventura County’s coast is predictable--and loud.

“We don’t need more limits,” said Colomy, who lives in Summerland. “I’m the last guy in the planet who wants to wipe the ocean out. When I throw the [small lobsters] back into the ocean, I’m making sure that I’ll have something to catch next year.”

But without this measure, supporters say, there may soon be nothing left to catch.

Because of overfishing, species of fish are beginning to vanish, they say.

“The Fish and Game’s inability to manage the fisheries shows that the existing regulations are way too lenient,” said Jim Donlon, a Camarillo sportfisherman and developer who heads a committee that supports fishing restrictions.

“They just wait until a fishery collapses, and then they close the thing down,” he said. “We’re trying to figure out how to build the stock back up. . . . And the fishermen are refusing to accept the facts.”

Disappearing Species

Consider, for instance, the fate of the abalone.

Thirty years ago, as many as 10,000 white abalone could be found in every 100 acres of ocean in about 40 spots around the Channel Islands, according to research prepared by the National Park Service. Now there are virtually none.

In fact, Gary Davis, a Ventura-based scientist with the National Park Service, said he found only nine abalone during a six-day trip to the Channel Islands last year.

Because of their near extinction, it has been illegal for commercial fishermen to catch the iridescent mollusks anywhere in California for a little more than a year.

Likewise, the coho salmon industry was closed to commercial fishing in 1993, many say because the timber industry destroyed the fish’s habitat. And heavy restrictions on sardine fishing have been in place since the 1950s, because of a combination of warmer water and overfishing.

*

With the no-take zones, scientists envision a beautiful underwater park, where fish are free to grow and reproduce. As they see it, sea life would flourish in these zones and replenish the parts of the ocean where fishing is allowed.

The concept has been tried in spurts in California, but, in the Channel Islands case, the scope is unprecedented.

Environmentalists backing the plan say they are not blaming fishermen.

It’s just that new scientific data are showing that certain fish species should not be caught every year, they say. For example, abalone spawns in huge numbers every five or so years, and should therefore be left alone to mature during the years it doesn’t.

“If we want fishing to continue, it makes sense to put some areas off-limits to fishing and pollution,” said Karen Garrison of the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco.

*

Some sportfishermen--concerned that the big ocean fish they used to catch are simply gone--are supporting the efforts as well.

But many of the state’s 9,000 commercial fishermen and crew members, especially those in Southern California, view the concept as strange and meddlesome.

Their fishing, they argue, is not depleting the ocean.

Rather the ocean’s health is much more dependent on pollution from household detergents and sewage runoff, not to mention marine diseases, El Nino and global warming. And then, they add, there are the hungry sea otters and seals that eat hordes of sardines and squid.

While some species are waning, others are on the comeback, fishermen argue.

Lobster fishermen point to the steady increase in size and number of lobsters through the years, mainly because the industry has taken measures to regulate itself--putting in trap doors for little lobsters to crawl out is one example.

Aside from this year’s shortage--due to El Nino--herring fishermen point to the rebound in their industry, which they attribute to cautious fishing practices.

Conflicting Ideas

The disagreements continuously fuel the debate on how best to protect the ocean.

Two plans in particular have fishermen up in arms.

If approved by the state Fish and Game Commission, a National Park Service proposal would forbid fishing in certain areas off the Channel Islands, turning these spots into underwater parks for scientific study.

And a separate state bill, which the Assembly must pass by August, would establish a scientific study team and a statewide process for creating ocean areas that would be off-limits to fishing.

The park service’s proposal suggests taking away at least 20%, or 25,000 acres, of prime fishing turf around the Channel Islands.

Fishing would be allowed in the remaining 80%, or 100,000 acres, of the one-mile band that surrounds each of the islands. Swimming and boating would also be allowed.

These no-take zones are backed by Davis, the park service scientist. A nearly identical plan is also being pushed by the Channel Islands Marine Resource Restoration Committee, which is made up of two dozen Ventura and Santa Barbara county professors, scientists, conservationists and recreational anglers.

*

Both Davis and the committee outlined their proposals to Fish and Game commissioners in March. Using abalone as the prime example, Davis showed that the ocean has been “serially depleted” of different types of fish.

“They use up the resources and shift to another resource,” Davis told the commissioners. “Since the 1950s we’ve been using everything up, and we’re running out of species.”

The commission took no action on the Channel Islands proposal, which would force the state agency to give up part of its territory for federal research.

Fish and Game Executive Director Robert Treanor said the department wouldn’t necessarily have to accept an all-or-nothing proposal. Perhaps a compromise plan could be worked out, he said, such as one with smaller no-take zones, different locations or limits on particular species.

The commission is expected to hear more public testimony at its August meeting in Point Reyes.

Another statewide proposal is equally worrisome to many of the state’s commercial fishermen and crew members--and even some recreational fishers, who say they already abide by the many Fish and Game rules regarding fish size, gear, and seasonal limits.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin Shelley (D-San Francisco), is called the Sea Life Conservation Act and is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Rather than set aside specific zones, the bill would create policy guidelines for what a “sea life reserve” or no-take zone would entail.

Iffy Results

Already, a hodgepodge of 104 so-called marine protected areas exist in California, but fewer than a dozen really work as truly hands-off areas where thorough research can be conducted, according to University of California researcher Deborah McArdle.

Many of these zones were created in rocky spots where no fish live anyway, so that politicians could look good in the eyes of their environmentally conscious constituents, McArdle found in her research.

Although such underwater refuges are set up elsewhere in the world, including New Zealand, there is no substantial scientific data in California yet that the zones would yield an abundance of fish that would help commercial fishermen in other parts of the ocean.

In fact, some of the species, such as rockfish, are homebodies and tend to stay put.

“I have never seen an analysis where a refuge would make a substantial contribution to reseed the fishing industry,” said Bill Kier, a fishing consultant and scientist in San Francisco who works for government agencies and private businesses.

“To what extent are these areas politically motivated? The general public hears, ‘refuges,’ and they say, ‘That’s cool!’ without really understanding . . . that you don’t save fisheries by shutting them down.

*

“When fisheries go away, a voice goes away,” Kier added, referring to the industry mantra that fishermen are the stewards of the sea.

But based on international studies and reports from the few California zones that do work, scientists say the evidence there shows that unfished areas will yield larger, more reproductive fish. It is the natural conclusion, then, that the creatures will eventually swim or crawl out to areas where fishermen will be able to catch them, many scientists say.

“There can be a spillover effect to nearby fisheries,” Garrison, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said.

Besides, the ocean doesn’t have to be in bad shape to warrant the creation of underwater parks, Garrison said. The sea life reserves are meant to be proactive “insurance policies,” she said.

Southern California fishermen have banded together in unprecedented numbers to protest the measure. Taking a cue from Northern California’s fishing lobby, they have started meeting with politicians to argue their case.

With a steady decline of fishermen since the early 1990s, many fishermen are concerned that the government is out to ruin their lives and kick them out of business for good.

*

“It’s going to create overfishing,” Colomy said. “They’ll just be forcing a lot of guys into one spot. It would be better if we just remained spread out.”

Also, Colomy and many other fishermen bristle at the idea that they are to blame for the ocean’s problems.

“It’s so easy to say, ‘You guys killed ‘em all.’ But how come newspapers are running stories about sewage spills, household detergents and pesticides running into the ocean?” Colomy asked.

Scientists acknowledge that other natural events and pollution affect the ocean, but say that fishing during these times often can exacerbate the problem.

Not everyone believes the issue has to be so divisive.

“When you read the [Natural Resources Defense Council] papers and see that the ocean’s going to hell in a handbasket, they’re just accentuating their point of view,” said Rick Klingbeil, a Long Beach Fish and Game program manager and former biologist. “But they’re not telling the whole truth . . . You’ve got one side wanting to close down everything and the other wants to close down nothing.”

Fishermen, Klingbeil said, are chiefly to blame for the decline of abalone, white sea bass and, at one point, sardines. But fishermen have also seen success stories with lobster, herring and halibut, largely due to rules the fishing industries themselves instituted.

Zeke Grader, head of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Assns. in San Francisco, agrees that fishermen should take some responsibility for the decline of certain species.

“I’d rather tell these guys the truth than have them ignore what is happening,” he said. “I want to see a sustainable future.”

*

Grader, who often comes under fire from some Southern California fishermen for his views, advocates working with scientists and politicians to create compromises.

He envisions well-designed no-take zones in some areas, while other spots could have species- or gear-restrictions. He also said it is crucial that fishermen help create the zones and ocean policies, a stipulation that is part of Shelley’s state bill.

Whichever proposal passes, something needs to change, said Bob MacDonald, a Channel Islands sportfisherman of 20 years who lives in Santa Clarita.

“I remember the fish being much bigger and more plentiful,” he said. “Now, I’m lucky to catch my limit.

“We need to set an area aside to give the fish a chance to come back . . . . I feel sorry for the commercial fishermen, but they brought this on themselves. If they want to have a livelihood for their children, they’ve got to preserve it for tomorrow. There has to be some give-and-take somewhere. It’s just the breaks.”