Panel Deadlocks on Size, Sites of No-Fishing Zone

After two years of planning and debate, fishing industry representatives and conservationists have come up with two rival proposals for establishing a no-fishing zone around the Channel Islands.

Panel members expressed disappointment at the deadlock, as the two sides remained far apart on where or how large the no-take areas would be around the five islands off the Ventura County coast.

“I think we put more pressure on ourselves and our stakeholders than could be expected to be endured,” said panel member Greg Helms of the Center for Marine Conservation. “I don’t think it was realistic, but it was the right thing to have tried to do.”

The panel, the Marine Reserve Working Group, was charged with reaching a consensus on where to ban fishing around the northern Channel Islands. Split down the middle, however, the panel ultimately decided to forward two very different maps to decision makers.

“It’s difficult to negotiate when everyone has veto power,” said panel member Steve Roberson of the Channel Islands Marine Resource Restoration Committee.

At Wednesday’s meeting in Santa Barbara, those representing commercial and sportfishing refused to accept any no-fishing zones around Anacapa and Santa Barbara islands, the two areas closest to shore and most popular with their constituents.

They would agree only on a 12% no-fishing zone that includes a swath off San Miguel Island, and areas south of Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz islands. But critics say those areas are already virtual no-take zones because of their remoteness and rough weather.

Conservation representatives said their map designating 28% no-fishing areas showed their willingness to compromise. Their plan includes a larger space north of San Miguel and stretches on the north sides of Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz and Anacapa islands.

Rival Conclusions From Scientists, Anglers

A scientific panel recommended that 30% to 50% of the sanctuary be set aside and said that anything less would not meet conservation goals of bringing back fish stocks and preserving habitat--including kelp forests, rocky reefs and a diversity of sea life. The no-fishing zones would be within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary boundary, 1,252 nautical acres around the islands.

But many fishing enthusiasts contended that they didn’t trust the science and were unwilling to give up valuable fishing areas that conservationists believe to be the most important spots to set aside. Those who fish argued against any no-take zones through most of the negotiations.

The group will present its rival conclusions to the Sanctuary Advisory Council on Wednesday. The state Fish and Game Commission will have the final say later this year.

All participants seemed to believe that was a disappointment.

“It’s something to be really sorry about,” Helms said. “I think the loss of control is a bigger blow to consumptive users, but I have no crystal ball.”

Helms said he expects the Fish and Game Commission to make its decision based on science panel recommendations. He said people who fish won’t have much choice in what areas are ultimately placed off-limits because they were willing to give up very little at this point.

Now conservationists have the freedom to ask for even bigger no-fishing zones because no compromise was reached.

But the other side said that although there was reason to worry, it couldn’t accept any more no-fishing zones and still face constituents. They were confident that the Fish and Game Commission would take their opinions into account, said panel member Locky Brown, who represented recreational divers.

“I think it will be fair,” he said.