Anglers Reeling Over Restrictions

The recent gloomy weather so prevalent along the waterfront may be unseasonal, but perhaps that’s fitting because the same adjective could be used to describe the mood.

“California anglers have just been knocked flat by the train leaving the station,” said Tom Raftican, president of the United Anglers of Southern California. “Other states need to take notice, because they’re next.”

Though most skippers and landing operators knew it was coming, Wednesday’s announcement that much of the Channel Islands will be permanently off-limits to fishing, beginning Jan. 1, hit anglers like a freight train.

The ban, announced by the California Fish and Game Commission at a meeting in Santa Barbara, encompasses 175 square miles and includes a network of 13 strategically placed marine reserves and marine conservation areas along portions of each of the five northern Channel Islands.

The establishment of no-fishing reserves, rather than the management of fisheries through catch and size limits, does appear to be the wave of the future. More are proposed along the California coast, and similar movements are underway in other states.

In California, they’re designed largely to protect overfished species of rockfish, most notably bocaccio, and other bottom fishes.

Environmentalists applauded the 2-1 vote of the commissioners approving one of the largest marine reserves in the United States but anglers -- they viewed the attendance of only three of five commissioners as a slap in the face -- voiced the same complaints they’ve had all along: The science used to assess the fisheries is flawed; commercial fishing, not sportfishing, is responsible for any such depletions; nobody has adequately taken into consideration the economic impact such closures will have.

“Not only will thousands of people in the region no longer be able to pursue America’s most popular outdoor leisure-time sport, but the local charter boats, hotels, restaurants and other business that rely on angler dollars will suffer,” Mike Nussman, president of the American Sportfishing Assn., said in a news release Thursday.

All of these claims have been argued to the contrary by scientists and working groups that have drawn up the proposals, and by environmental advocates during a lengthy public review process.

As the leaders of sportfishing groups continue to lash out at those in support of such exclusionary measures, and Gov. Gray Davis and the commissioners he appointed are their most visible targets, captains and landing operators are left with little choice but to try to adapt.

“Unfortunately, about 80% of where we have traditionally fished is affected by the closures so we’ll have to find new spots,” said Bruce Williams, manager of Port Hueneme Sportfishing. “The sad part is that we generally fish most of those areas for migratory fish such as yellowtail and white seabass. It’s not like we’re sitting there all day pounding the rockfish.”

Though large areas of island and coastal waters will remain open to fishing for years to come, many landing operators have begun to explore their options.

“We’re going to have to adapt,” Williams said.

*

The saltwater angling community has cast its support almost entirely behind Bill Simon for governor.

And the Republican hopeful is doing what he can to foster the disdain many of the state’s 2 million licensed anglers hold toward Davis, who has been accused of catering to environmental interests for political reasons.

In a letter to the editor of a weekly Southland fishing publication -- now circulating on the Internet -- Simon promised to “commit to all of those anglers that I will make appointments of individuals to my administration who understand the importance of recreational fishing to the state’s economy, and who understand the importance of sound fisheries management, using” all the tools available to them.

“First and foremost,” Simon’s letter stated, “I will demand that any management decisions be based on good science, not on protectionist rhetoric.”