- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
Anglers off hook on ocean closures
By Ed Zieralski, San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
January 19, 2003
Fishermen attending the San Diego Anglers 8th Annual Open Bay Bass Tournament yesterday received some great news.
Tom Raftican, president of the United Anglers of California, told the group that the Department of Fish and Game announced Friday that it may have to "pause" the process of establishing no-fishing, marine-protected areas along the coast of California until the department has "secured adequate funding to support the entire process through completion."
Also, the United Anglers and the Sportfishing Association of California (SAC) have called upon the DFG to "turn the job of creating marine reserves in the Northern Channel Islands over to the Marine Life Protection Act process."
Raftican and Bob Fletcher of SAC wrote to the DFG on Friday, stating that the closure of 175 square miles of prime fishing grounds around the Channel Islands by the Fish and Game Commission on Oct. 23 violated the Brown Act. Only three of the five commissioners voted, and the vote was 2-1 in favor of the fishing closures. Raftican and Fletcher said a majority of the commission, not just those present who formed a quorum, must vote in favor or against.
Raftican said the DFG could start the Channel Islands reserve process over, but will need a minimum of 45 days of public comment and "hear again from the thousands of fishermen whose lives will be dramatically affected by the closures."
But the state's severe budget cuts already have impacted the Marine Life Protection Act process, so starting over on the Channel Islands likely will be too costly, Raftican said.
A second option, Raftican said, and one the DFG should take, is to let the Marine Life Protection Act include the Channel Islands as part of that network of no-fishing marine reserves.
"The Marine Life Protection Act will have the time to address questions of the use of marine parks and conservation areas, enforcement, monitoring and establishing criteria for successes or failures that were not addressed in the Channel Islands," Raftican said.
"I've been in heaven since hearing about all this on Friday," Raftican said. "We're finally getting some answers on all this. And we believe that if no action is taken in the next two weeks on the Channel Islands, they have to start over, or kick it into the Marine Life Protection Act process."
By Ed Zieralski, San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
January 19, 2003
Fishermen attending the San Diego Anglers 8th Annual Open Bay Bass Tournament yesterday received some great news.
Tom Raftican, president of the United Anglers of California, told the group that the Department of Fish and Game announced Friday that it may have to "pause" the process of establishing no-fishing, marine-protected areas along the coast of California until the department has "secured adequate funding to support the entire process through completion."
Also, the United Anglers and the Sportfishing Association of California (SAC) have called upon the DFG to "turn the job of creating marine reserves in the Northern Channel Islands over to the Marine Life Protection Act process."
Raftican and Bob Fletcher of SAC wrote to the DFG on Friday, stating that the closure of 175 square miles of prime fishing grounds around the Channel Islands by the Fish and Game Commission on Oct. 23 violated the Brown Act. Only three of the five commissioners voted, and the vote was 2-1 in favor of the fishing closures. Raftican and Fletcher said a majority of the commission, not just those present who formed a quorum, must vote in favor or against.
Raftican said the DFG could start the Channel Islands reserve process over, but will need a minimum of 45 days of public comment and "hear again from the thousands of fishermen whose lives will be dramatically affected by the closures."
But the state's severe budget cuts already have impacted the Marine Life Protection Act process, so starting over on the Channel Islands likely will be too costly, Raftican said.
A second option, Raftican said, and one the DFG should take, is to let the Marine Life Protection Act include the Channel Islands as part of that network of no-fishing marine reserves.
"The Marine Life Protection Act will have the time to address questions of the use of marine parks and conservation areas, enforcement, monitoring and establishing criteria for successes or failures that were not addressed in the Channel Islands," Raftican said.
"I've been in heaven since hearing about all this on Friday," Raftican said. "We're finally getting some answers on all this. And we believe that if no action is taken in the next two weeks on the Channel Islands, they have to start over, or kick it into the Marine Life Protection Act process."
