Commercial Fishing

I am writing this to defend my name against the commonly used word “‘overfishing.” “Overfishing” insinuates commercial fishermen are to blame for 20 million people who think this is a pretty neat place to live.

I am not sure if the general public is aware of this, but overfishing is a relative term. For example, if you have only two fish remaining in the ocean and their offspring have a snowball’s chance in hell of survival because of gross mismanagement of a fishery, pollution, loss of habitat and global warming, then a fisherman catching one of these might be guilty of over-harvesting.

I am a sea urchin diver. In the late 1980s the California Department of Fish and Game gave out about 960 licenses. Through no stretch of the imagination could they have thought this would create a sustainable fishery. During this period--the glory days of the sea-urchin industry, when the environment looked much better and the Japanese economy was hot--the supply could sustain fewer than 300 fishermen statewide. Yet today, when 50 divers can harvest all the urchins down to the minimum size limit around Anacapa and San Miguel islands, we still have 433 licensed sea urchin divers in California.

You can also blame loss of habitat. California has sold out 93% of its wetlands. In the name of restoring the Ormond Beach wetlands it appears it is also necessary to build two golf courses, two hotels, 3,500 homes, a movie studio complex and 40 acres of aquaculture.

My point is: I am a victim. The entire Pacific Ocean is a victim and fishermen--sport and commercial alike--do not need any extra burdens. This is a degradation of our livelihoods and a further strain on our future. We are the only ones economically dependent on the health of the ocean and the best indicator species you are going to get. What came first, the idea to restore Ormond Beach wetlands for the good of the people and the environment, or this development plan?

After 20 years of working underwater, I can say without a doubt that things are not looking good for our Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and the coast looks poisoned. The strength and growth of the United States is ultimately sacrificing environmental quality. Is this sustainable?

DAN BRAINERD, Ventura