Fishermen Assail Plan to Expand Sanctuary

Fishermen and others voiced fears Tuesday that a plan to expand ecological protection of Ventura County’s coastal waters could take millions of dollars from them and those whose jobs depend on them.

The proposal to extend the boundaries of Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and a separate but related plan to bar fishing in some areas covered within current boundaries, would further limit a business that is already restricted, said some who rely on the sea for their livelihoods.

“There’s been an incredible increase in regulations, and it’s had a dramatic effect,” said Chuck Janisse, a fishing activist who spoke at the Chamber of Commerce-sponsored forum in Ventura. “It isn’t clear if the [fishing] industry will survive.”

It’s not clear how large the boundary would be, where so-called no-take zones would be located or how any of the proposed regulations would affect fishermen.

“I keep hearing that fishermen are angry,” said Eric Hooper of the Ventura County Commercial Fishermen’s Assn. But, he added, they and their “families are scared.”

One of a dozen in the nation, the ocean sanctuary is modeled in part on the national parks. It was created to balance marine life and apply regulations governing watercraft, offshore oil drilling, shipping and noise-producing activities.

In August, after more than a year of study, the 20-member sanctuary advisory council deadlocked over two competing visions for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: one that would triple the current size and push up to the beaches stretching from Santa Maria to Point Mugu, and a second that would only increase the sanctuary’s size by 13%.

A study conducted by a sanctuary committee also suggested 30% to 50% of the area within the current boundary be set aside as no-take zones--areas where fishing is forbidden. Some fishermen seized on those percentages as representative of their potential fishing losses, but sanctuary officials said they would work with fishermen to determine the location of the no-take zones.

“I haven’t seen anything that says 30% closure means 30% loss,” said Sean Hastings, resources protection coordinator at the sanctuary. “There are lots of ways to create reserves, and you need to represent the variety of habitats.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will most likely publish its boundary decision in a draft report in February, which would then require more public review, Hastings said. A no-take-zones proposal could come in May, he said.

Hastings said he understood the concerns of local businesses but thought some were “jumping to the worst-case scenario.”

Still, some members of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce said, the proposed plans could hurt commercial fishing in the county and affect tourism if recreational activities are limited.

In 1999, 155.9 million pounds of commercially harvested fish worth $32.3 million were landed in Ventura County ports, according to the Ventura Port District. That level of commercial fish landings was the 10th highest in the nation.

The Ventura Port District wrote the ocean and atmospheric administration in May, stating it wanted to keep the current boundaries. In November, the district wrote Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) and said it was being shut out of the process and that there was a “growing concern that the ‘good neighbor’ relationship . . . may change.”

Gallegly is a key member of the House subcommittee that governs national parks and public lands.

Oscar Pena, the port’s general manager, said he and other port managers from San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay were considering securing their own economists to counter pending studies conducted by analysts for the Channel Islands sanctuary.

John Johnson, who owns the Ventura Harbor boatyard, said if he had known the marine sanctuary was considering closing some areas to fishing he never would have gone through with a recent upgrade.

“If we don’t keep it as it is now, we probably won’t be able to run our business, and that will affect other businesses,” he said. “This is a great idea to fix something we’re not sure is broken.”

City Councilman Brian Brennan, who attended the Tuesday morning meeting, said no-take zones and expanded boundaries could be good for both fisheries and those concerned about ecology.

“There are concerns, I recognize, but look at the bigger picture,” he said.

“You have to look at other areas that have been successful,” he said, citing Chesapeake Bay, where no-take zones have helped revive over-fished waters.

It could be years before any decisions are finally made, Hastings said.

Ultimately, “these are national treasures, from Alaska to Hawaii, Maine to Florida, not about local interests,” he said. “That’s the interest brought to bear here.”