Discussion gets heated regarding marine reserves

Bob Kirk of Ventura, also known as Anacapa Bob, has been a kayak fisherman for nearly a decade. He is primarily a catch and release fisher, kayaking in nature’s finest coastal regions from Point Dume in Malibu to a lesser known spot in Carpinteria to the marine parks in the Channel Islands. While Kirk doesn’t rely on fishing as his mainstay, being able to fish and explore has become a very important part of his life.

“These areas are sacred to me, areas that are really precious,” Kirk said.

But things are about to change for Kirk and fellow recreational and commercial fishermen, as representatives of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) initiative wrap up the final round of public meetings, discussing with stakeholders which coastal regions will fall under protected reserves and conservation areas. In marine reserves, all types of fishing are prohibited; in conservation areas, there is only limited fishing and only certain types of fish can be taken.

The MLPA initiative, which was enacted in 1999 to protect certain dwindling fish populations and related ecological zones, has lain dormant due to fiscal and organizational issues for nearly a decade. Because of a recent influx of funding from private donors, the MLPA has moved forward with full force in negotiating with stakeholders — mainly fishermen and environmental groups — and drawing up maps on which areas should remain open to fishing and which ones should be off limits. About 20 percent of California’s and the Channel Islands’ fishing grounds will be closed off to any type of fishing, which doesn’t include the four marine reserves set in place in 2004 at four of the Channel Islands, according to Kirk.

“The closures will close me out of pristine fishing grounds,” he said.

Kirk contends that the MLPA initiative isn’t justified, since he has seen a significant stock rise in certain fish, especially halibut, and that the rules already in place for the past 10 years have been getting things, from an ecological standpoint, back on track.

“The fishing only got better,” he said. “The Department of Fish and Game already has size limits and season limits, and they are very well-followed and -managed. It is a well-managed fishery that is doing just fine.”

Joe Geever, the California policy coordinator for Surfrider Foundation and a neutral party in the MLPA discussions, disagrees, though, saying that 10 years isn’t a long enough period of time to compare situations.

“I was a fisherman for 12 to 15 years, and I can tell you it’s not as healthy as it was 40 to 50 years ago,” he said. “We still have a long ways to go.”

Geever said that while fish populations may appear to be increasing for certain species, it simply isn’t the way things were decades ago. He said the marine reserves should have been in place years ago, but there just wasn’t information available about how people were impacting the oceans and marine life back then. The maps, efforts and sacrifices many will make will, in turn, hopefully, get ecological zones back to how they were before fishing made such an indelible impact, according to Geever.

He did note, however, that the projections made about the return of marine life to prior pristine conditions, thanks to the marine reserves, haven’t panned out as well as originally thought. This goes for the marine reserves at the Channel Islands.

“They just did a five-year report — these things don’t come back overnight. It is actually fair to say it didn’t do any of the things that were predicted to the extent of noticeable improvement in size, diversity and health of the ecological system,” Geever said, also noting that it wasn’t as bad for the fishermen as it was once believed it would be. “There have not been the economic impacts — fishermen found other places to go.”

M.J. Kennedy of Port Hueneme, a kayak fishermen and a member of the regional stakeholder group, grew up working on fishing boats. He said he understands the need to protect ecological habitats, but he doesn’t think it is fair to make fishing off-limits to everyone by establishing the stringent marine reserves, which will stay in place indefinitely.

“We get lumped in with the commercial take,” he said. “We take 10 fish a year — we see ourselves as stewards of the ocean.”

Melissa Miller-Henson, program manager from the MLPA initiative, said she is hoping through the public meetings that both the fishermen and the environment will come out unscathed, at least, not too badly.

“If we can achieve on the goals of the act while limiting the impact on the fisheries, why not do it?” she said.

She said she the overarching goals of the MLPA initiative are to achieve eco-system protection, natural diversity, natural abundance, etc. while minimizing the economic impacts on fisheries.

Geever believes that once everything is said and done, the changes won’t be as dramatic to the lifestyles of many fishermen, similar to the marine reserves set in place in New Zealand. He recalls the outrage of the fishermen when comparable reserves were set in place, but over time, they came to protect the reserves and some even turned into vigilantes when others would violate the areas.

The hope is that by creating a reserve, fish will populate and begin to be pushed out of the marine reserves, thereby creating a protected breeding ground within the reserve and a fishing ground around the edges, Geever said.

The final maps won’t be drawn up for another six months, pending approval by the Department of Fish and Game. But the public discussions haven’t reached a conclusion yet, with a few more to go. People from all walks of life can attend the public meetings and have their say on the matter.    

For more information and dates and times of public meetings, visit the MLPA initiative Web site at www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/

michael@vcreporter.com