No-Take Zones to Expand Around Channel Islands

Taking a step to regenerate dwindling fish stocks, state wildlife officials have decided to significantly expand no-take zones at the Channel Islands.

The decision last week by the five-member state Fish and Game Commission signals a new direction in fisheries management, which has traditionally relied upon setting up seasons and catch limits to safeguard fish populations.

No-fishing zones represent the strongest regulatory action available, but biologists say they may be the last best hope to restore commercial species ravaged by overfishing, including abalone, rockfish and sea urchins.

At its regular meeting in San Diego on Wednesday, the state commission--which formulates state fishing regulations--for the first time declared its intention to exclude fishermen from areas considered vital to fish survival and reproduction. Although the commission did not vote to actually establish specific no-take zones, it directed the state Department of Fish and Game to make the program a priority and to set up some zones by the end of the year.

A no-fish zone already exists in a small area off Anacapa Island, but the panel indicated its willingness to create a network of areas off-limits to fishing around several of the islands.

The decision angered some local commercial fishermen, who say it is premature and needs more study.

“They are making it difficult for us fishermen to make any money,” said Neil Guglielmo, who has been fishing for sardines, squid and mackerel around the Channel Islands for more than 30 years.

Just a few months ago, the Department of Fish and Game took a go-slow approach to National Park Service proposals to institute no-take zones at Point Reyes National Seashore and other areas.

But at its meeting last week, the commissioners expressed frustration with the department, saying it was taking too long to study the issue. The commission then ordered the agency to submit by March a plan showing how no-take zones can be managed and how they would affect species recovery as well as fishing fleets.

“It’s long overdue,” said Warner Chabot, director of the Pacific region for the Center for Marine Conservation. “It’s a powerful tool, but it’s one that has great promise for protecting and enhancing the environment. It’s very significant.”

A pilot program to begin establishing a network of no-fish zones will begin at the five islands of Channel Islands National Park, according to fish and game department officials, probably by the end of the year.

The Channel Islands Marine Resources Restoration Committee, a grass-roots group, petitioned the commission last year to exclude fishermen from 25,000 acres--or 23%--of the waters surrounding the islands. Biologists blame fishing for substantial declines in fish within the waters at the park.

“We’ve had two years of monitoring and we can see things are really going downhill,” said Gary Davis, marine biologist at Channel Islands National Park. “Existing management systems are not working by any stretch of the imagination.”

The California coast is a patchwork of 104 marine refuges, sanctuaries and protected areas. But many of those allow fishing. In fact, less than one-tenth of 1% of the state’s 1,100-mile long coastline is off-limits to fishing.

No-fish zones comprise 5,250 acres in California waters, including a few dozen acres off Anacapa Island, Point Lobos Marine Life Refuge, Heisler Park Ecological Refuge in Orange County and a strand of shore near Vandenberg Air Force Base, said Deborah McArdle, marine advisor in the Sea Grant program.

“Up until now, reserves have been created willy-nilly due to local concern over an animal or tide pools,” said Rob Collins, near-shore ecosystem coordinator for the Department of Fish and Game. “What the commission did is indicate they want to develop a coherent system of reserves with clearly defined objectives.”

As fish stocks decline worldwide, nations are increasingly banning fishing from parts of the sea. The goal is to give species a chance to rebuild and repopulate surrounding waters; create complete, functioning ecosystems scientists can study to benefit fisheries elsewhere; and promote tourism.

“It’s looking at ways to provide sustainability of our marine resources,” said Robert Treanor, executive director of the Fish and Game Commission.

Guglielmo said he knows no-take zones are inevitable. But he said the commission needs to allow fishermen to be more involved in deciding which areas should be closed. Guglielmo also said fishermen are not the problem--pleasure boats are.

“If their main concern is to have areas for the fish to spawn, they should limit the amount of boats,” Guglielmo said.

Clay Miller, who fishes primarily for squid and tuna, said he thinks no-take zones are premature. He said the Fish and Game Commission should do a lengthier study before closing the area to fishing. And it shouldn’t base that study on an El Nino year, which he fears the government may be doing.

“The places they want to close are the places we fish,” Miller said. “There are other parts of the islands where nobody fishes. Why not close those parts? Nobody fishes there anyway.”

The fishermen said species that stay in the same area year-round, such as lobsters and abalone, will be most affected by no-fishing protections. Migratory species such as mackerel, sardines and squid won’t be affected as much.

Times Community News Reporter Anna Gorman contributed to this report.