Posted on 11/19/2006 12:33:33 PM PST by lowbridge
MONTEREY, Calif. - Flying over California's rugged Central Coast, Mike Sutton pointed to kelp forests and rocky reefs just below the water's surface that will soon be off-limits to fishing under one of the nation's most ambitious plans to protect marine life.
"We're trying to make sure our oceans are protected as our land," said Sutton, a marine expert at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Despite intense opposition from many fishermen, California wildlife regulators are creating the nation's most extensive network of "marine protected areas" — stretches of ocean where fishing will be banned or severely restricted.
The first chain of refuges, covering some 200 square miles and stretching from Santa Barbara to Half Moon Bay, just south of San Francisco, is due to take effect early next year. The state plans similar protected zones along the more intensely fished coasts of northern and southern California.
Conservationists say such networks are a new approach to saving the oceans from overfishing. They believe California's plan could serve as a model for other states and countries.
"It's the beginning of a historic shift in how we restore, protect and manage our oceans," said Warner Chabot, vice president of the Ocean Conservancy. "We're doing something that's as historic for the oceans as what Teddy Roosevelt did 100 years ago when he created national parks and forests."
However, the planned restricted areas overlap with some of California's most productive fishing grounds, and commercial and recreational fishermen question whether they're even necessary given the existing array of state and federal regulations.
"We're duplicating conservation efforts unnecessarily," said Vern Goehring, manager of the California Fisheries Coalition. "There are significant actions already under way to prevent overfishing in California."
Fishermen say the no-fishing zones will put more pressure on areas outside the reserves and could lead to increased seafood imports from countries with fewer marine protections.
At Monterey's Fisherman's Wharf, longtime trollers and crabbers say the new restrictions will cripple their industry, hurt fishing communities and leave Californians with less fresh, local seafood.
"We're being regulated out of business," said Mike Rivets, a 70-year-old fisherman for salmon, crab and tuna.
But scientists say more must be done to protect marine life.
A report in this month's issue of the journal Science warns that nearly a third of the world's seafood species have collapsed — meaning their catch has declined by 90 percent or more — and all populations of fished species could collapse by 2048 if current fishing and pollution trends continue.
"We've mismanaged the oceans from abundance into scarcity," said Karen Garrison, an ocean expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We can't protect our oceans without setting aside safe havens where fish can grow big and the whole food web can thrive."
The protected areas will include marine reserves where all fishing will be banned, as well as marine parks and conservation areas that will allow some forms of sport fishing.
All the restricted zones are designed to harbor rockfish, abalone, shellfish and other species that stay in one area, rather than migratory fish such as salmon and tuna. Sea otters and other marine mammals are expected to benefit from the increased food supply.
Governments worldwide have been creating marine sanctuaries with various levels of restrictions for the past 40 years.
In June, President Bush created the world's biggest protected marine area in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, covering 140,000 square miles of largely uninhabited islands, atolls and coral reefs where commercial fishing will be phased out over the next five years.
Australia created a network of reserves on the Great Barrier Reef last year. South Africa and New Zealand are working on plans to protect coastal fisheries.
The Fish and Game Commission voted for the Central Coast preserves in August after two years of negotiations between fishermen, conservationists and coastal residents. Conservation groups had sought even greater restrictions, but were generally pleased with the outcome.
Many fishermen, however, are embittered.
"They felt betrayed by the process. They felt that all their input was ignored," said Bob Fletcher, who heads the Sportfishing Association of California.
In the Central Coast port of Morro Bay, Darby Neil is worried about the fate of Virg's Landing, the charter boat operator his grandfather started more than 40 years ago.
"They've already squeezed us down to nothing," Neil said. "It's already so severe that we really can't take anymore."
"We're being regulated out of business,"
---
California leads the way..
California owns the ocean?
Unless you're special
But scientists say more must be done to protect marine life.
Wow, who is a better example - "Complaining 70 year old guy" or "scientsts"?
Kalifornia would be better served if they spent their time putting out fires.They go after smokers when there has already been enough smoke generated by the fires to more than equal all the cigarette smoke from all the smokers for a hundred years!
They have no jurisdiction over the oceans or commerce in\on the oceans. The SC found (early in our history) that 1) The Federal Govt has jurisdiction over all navigable waterways 2) It is the Fed Govt's responsibilty to regualte interstate commerce.
I personally believe that private, personal consumer guy type harvesting should always be protected even over a commercial fishery.
Something about food-to-mouth simplicity that is resonant with me!
Unfortunately, the U.S. has not yet ratified the Convention. Thus, the rule is that states can control adjacent seas between the traditional 3 marine miles and the mean high water mark and inland navigable waters. See: U.S. vs. Florida, USSC-1960s---The State of Florida impounded Cuban fishing vessels around Cape Ramano and the outer-most key. The USSC said,--'no can do, that's the job of the U.S. in territorial waters as part of its role in conducting foreign commerce and relations.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
Middie-I believe that the concept that the federal govt has jusrisdiction over "navigable waterways" goes back to the late 1700's with a SC decision. And recently they held that (Rapanos dec.) navigable waterways extends to "wetlands"-read ponds in someone's backyard. I think the fed govt already has the power to challange this power grab by California. And if as I suspect that some of the (commerical)fisherman are regulated and or licensed by the Fed Govt-then the "intersate commerce clause" comes into play. And I would submit that because the USCG has jurisdiction over regulating and inspecting safety equipment on the boats, that the "intersate commerce" argument is strengthened. California is attempting to regulate intersate commerce.
Place restrictions on something (for the children) and then when the cost of it goes up legislate government relief (subsidies, welfare) for getting it (again, for the children).
One good way to lose the interest of the general public in protecting an area is to ban them.
www.catalinaop.com
awesome fresh grouper
The regulation of the tuna fishing industry to protect dolphins has driven it out of the US. I'm guessing the countries where it's now based don't care how many dolphins they drown. Sounds like a good model for what'll happen with this.
I doubt that fishermen are certified as competent and thus the license fees are merely revenue based and the issuing governmental agency has no regulatory control over any aspect of their occupation. Examples of competence licensing are: plumbers, electician, real estate personnel. Usually, by showing a state certificate or compliance with a specific local code. Examples of merely revenue based would be physicians, lawyers, stock brokers, etc. With those folks there is a state or federal agency regulates their conduct and disciplines them.
The feds and states have concurrent jurisdiction over waterways, each with their own set of oversight and regulatory criteria.
The fundamental question about California's ability to regulate fishing will come not on the ocean but in limitation on the specie and quanities on menus in food stores. That probably is not an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce or an interference with the federal government's perogative in foreign relations.
This may violate the State Constitution. IIRC, we actually have a "right to fish" in our Constitution. (No right to keep and bear arms, but a right to fish... That shows where our heads are at!)
California should get serious and ban seafood from being sold or consumed within its boundaries.
Crude oil, too, for that matter.
It's hypocriticial to prevent the supply of fish or oil from state waters and still allow citizens to consume it from other sources of supply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.