Panel Casts 4 Options for No-Fishing Zones Around Reserve

Four options for no-fishing zones around the Channel Islands are being proposed to help protect fish stocks and wildlife.

The proposals by an advisory panel range from designating 8% to 50% of the area’s national marine sanctuary surrounding the islands as no-fishing zones. The 1,252 nautical-acre sanctuary, which provides some federal protections such as prohibiting gasoline dumping, encircles San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz and Anacapa islands off the Ventura County coast.

The four options--the result of 18 months of planning and debate--underscore the diverse and often polarizing interests of the Marine Reserves Working Group, which includes representatives from fishing industries, conservation groups and park agencies.

“Our goal was to make sure everybody at the table had something they could live with,” said member Gary Davis, senior scientist for Channel Islands National Park.

But the group’s 19 panel members, who met last month, remain sharply divided over what they perceive as the best solution, with commercial fishermen favoring fewer so-called no-take zones and conservationists lobbying for more.

The panel’s four options will be presented to the public for comment at a March 21 meeting. The state Fish and Game Commission, which will begin deliberations in May, will make the final decision on the size and location of the new reserve.

Conservationists generally favor a ban covering 30% to 50% of sanctuary waters, following a recommendation last fall by a panel of marine scientists. Last month, a study signed by 160 scientists called for the immediate implementation of large swaths of no-fishing zones around the world.

A small no-fishing zone already exists off the north shore of Anacapa Island, the closest island to the Ventura County coast.

The Channel Islands sanctuary is one of the first in the nation to go through the controversial process of expanding no-take zones. In the Florida Keys, biologists recommended protecting 15% of the fish habitat, but that proposal was pared to 1% in 1997 because of strong opposition.

Fishermen here contend that their economic concerns are being ignored. Two of the four proposed no-take zones include about a third of the marine reserve.

Conservationists are “giving up nothing,” said Neil Guglielmo, a panel member who fishes for squid out of Oxnard. The new maps are “interesting scenarios, but I would rather see one or two [more] of lesser closures.”

Guglielmo and other fishermen also floated the idea of phased implementation, which would presumably allow those who make their living from the sea to move on to other careers.

“We owe it to them to be able to finish out their careers,” Guglielmo said. “In the year 2050, perhaps 50% of the Channel Islands will be closed. It’s easy to be a flag waver [for conservation] if you’re not the one getting shot at.”

But some conservationists say the time to save depleted fishing stocks is now, and that can only be done by creating large no-take zones.

In January, Mike McGinnis, acting director of the Ocean and Coastal Policy Center at UC Santa Barbara, walked out of a committee meeting in protest, saying the group was ignoring science in its quest for consensus.

“[The group] is going down a path that broke from the best available scientific evaluation,” he said later.

“Do we want to create fake reserves that don’t serve any purpose? . . . The reliance on consensus can’t replace the need for leadership in this process.”

The group will next hear from science and socioeconomic experts on the effect of each of the proposed no-take maps.

Some fishing industry representatives say they’re still not comfortable with the idea of more no-take zones, even though they’ve agreed to them in theory.

They argue that with additional regulations that have come in recent years, any new efforts to rein in fishing are too much at once.

“Maybe we should be looking at some limited-impact areas, or a catch-and-release,” said Tom Raftican, president of the United Anglers sportfishing organization, who says the process is moving ahead before some key questions about compliance and regulation are answered.

But conservationists argue that’s taking a step back.

“Sportfishing is saying ‘no way’ to [restricting] Anacapa and [nearby] Santa Barbara [islands], and that’s causing conservation [interests] some consternation,” said Craig Fusaro, director of the privately funded Joint Oil/Fisheries Committee based in Santa Barbara.

Members of the board expressed confidence they will come to a final decision soon--even after a public hearing that could be divided along the same lines the panel is.

“It’s taken two years to get to this point and a fair amount of money,” Davis said. “If this fails, for whatever reason, it will put a chill on community-based consensus decision.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

No-Take Proposals

The Marine Reserves Working Group is suggesting four possible options for establishing no-fishing zones around the Channel Islands. The following options will be used to gather feedback from the public.

* Proposed no-take zones

** Marine Sanctuary Area

Source: Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary