Deep-Six Proposed Closures, Fishermen Say

With a recommendation looming on whether to ban fishing in spots around the Channel Islands, about 250 fishermen have made a rowdy push to stop such action.

At a public forum Wednesday night intended to gather feedback on four scenarios for no-fishing zones--ranging from 8% to 50% of the 1,252-nautical-acre marine sanctuary around the islands--the fishermen arrived in force and made their dissatisfaction known.

They heckled. They booed. And at one point a chant rose from the crowd: “No closures! No closures! No closures!”

“I feel this is the Alamo for sportfishing,” Michael Grossman, former president of the Los Angeles Rod and Reel Club, said at the meeting. “If any of these go through, I think it will be the beginning of a domino effect.”

Their comments came as a scientific panel at the meeting recommended a moderate set-aside would be the best approach, in the belief the smallest scenario would not save habitat or replenish dwindling fish stocks and a 50% sanctuary would hit fishermen too hard.

The advisory group--made up of conservationists, divers and fishermen--will probably use one of the mid-range scenarios as a starting point at its meeting next month, though consensus is still far from sure, said panel member Gary Davis, senior scientist for Channel Islands National Park.

The group’s recommendation will go to the state Fish and Game Commission, which is expected to begin deliberations in May on the size and location of any new reserve.

While agreeing that no-fishing, or no-take, zones could be tough on fishermen, an economic panel predicted any new no-fishing zones would hardly be a blip on the area’s overall economy. That prediction, however, doesn’t sit well with fishermen.

“Why am I being punished for feeding people?” said Mark Becker, a Santa Barbara lobsterman. “The reserve is asking us to give up a large amount of income to test an idea we may get no return from. I won’t become a plumber.”

The fishermen--many of them recreational anglers spurred into action by organized groups--worry that designating any area as a no-take zone means more are on the way.

Some even question the belief that fish stocks are dwindling. Accurate counts, they say, are impossible, adding that if one type of fish is scarce one year, that doesn’t mean it will be the next.

“We’re out there every day,” said Jim Colomy, a Santa Barbara fisherman. “The fish leave, but they come back. They have tails. They move.”

*

Also, some fishermen say they are worried that once no-fishing zones are in place, the sanctuary and the Department of Fish and Game won’t have the funds to patrol them, creating the perfect fishing zone for poaching and cheating law-abiding fishermen.

“I trust the Feds this much,” Colomy said, holding his thumb and forefinger a pinch apart.

Matthew Pickett, manager of the marine sanctuary, answered that his organization must have the map before it can budget for patrolling the area. That would most likely be handled by a cooperative effort of the Department of Fish and Game, the National Park Service and the marine sanctuary.

The meeting marked the first open forum for the public to discuss the four scenarios devised by the advisory council, and many considered it their best chance to attack the plans.

Later in the evening, the audience was divided into groups, and tempers seemed to lessen as participants went through each proposal. At some of the tables, even fishermen agreed some reserves might be appropriate.

*

“I think everyone, even the fishermen, have to see that we can’t use up what’s out there,” said Christie Lewis, a Ventura resident with what she called “environmental leanings.”

Paul Crane, a sport fisherman from Simi Valley, said he would rather see such management techniques as catch-and-release and limited species fishing, but said he could live with one of the maps that puts about 30% of the sanctuary off-limits.

“It’s the only one that makes sense for a sports fisherman,” he said, noting that it included one of his favorite fishing locations on the north side of Santa Cruz Island. “I’ve been fishing since I was a kid, but I’m game [to accept the plan] if my kids will still be able to fish when they’re older. But I’m not 100% sold.”