- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
By Ed Zieralski, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
December 15, 2002
Fishermen took a page out of the environmentalist-protectionist playbook last week and took their battle for fishing grounds to court.
Usually it's the other way around.
But this time a broad coalition of anglers has banded together to try to keep the state of California from closing key fishing grounds at the Channel Islands.
Led by the Ventura County Commercial Fishermen's Association and attorney Ilson New, a fisheries and state law expert, the coalition has asked the Superior Court in Ventura for relief against the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Game.
"The main thing is we want to get an injunction to stop these closures so we can take a good look at this and do it the right way," said Tom Raftican, president of the United Anglers of Southern California.
Raftican said that present rockcod restrictions and groundfish closure areas are more than enough management tools to protect the fishery off California.
"A no-take area is not a fisheries management tool," Raftican said. "Our overall concern is fisheries management, and before we take away large fishing areas from the public, we have to do it right."
Raftican said the Fish and Game Commission took far too many shortcuts in establishing the 25 percent closure around the Channel Islands.
Only three of the five Fish and Game Commissioners voted on the closure, and the two who missed the vote – president Michael Flores and Jim Kellogg – still haven't explained why they missed it.
"That was just one of the things wrong with the commission's action," Raftican said. "There are a number of reasons why we should get relief on this. Above all, when these marine protected areas are set up, they must be reviewed by the Legislature's joint committee of fisheries. It should have been reviewed by law, but it wasn't. It was a rush to judgment by the people who wanted the closures. We contend that effective fisheries management is the key."
Raftican said there are more questions about the inadequacy of the environmental document backing the closures and the entire process of establishing marine protected areas. He said budget cuts by the state due to the state's huge deficit will prevent the Department of Fish and Game from enforcing the closures at the Channel Islands.
In addition to the Ventura County Commercial Fisherman's Association, petitioners include the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, United Anglers of California, the Recreational Fishing Alliance of Southern California, the Sea Urchin Harvester's Association of California, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, the Southern California Commercial Fisherman's Association, the California Lobster and Trap Fisherman's Association and the Sportfishing Council of California.
It's a coalition of both sport and commercial fishermen, a strong, united voice if ever there was one.
December 15, 2002
Fishermen took a page out of the environmentalist-protectionist playbook last week and took their battle for fishing grounds to court.
Usually it's the other way around.
But this time a broad coalition of anglers has banded together to try to keep the state of California from closing key fishing grounds at the Channel Islands.
Led by the Ventura County Commercial Fishermen's Association and attorney Ilson New, a fisheries and state law expert, the coalition has asked the Superior Court in Ventura for relief against the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Game.
"The main thing is we want to get an injunction to stop these closures so we can take a good look at this and do it the right way," said Tom Raftican, president of the United Anglers of Southern California.
Raftican said that present rockcod restrictions and groundfish closure areas are more than enough management tools to protect the fishery off California.
"A no-take area is not a fisheries management tool," Raftican said. "Our overall concern is fisheries management, and before we take away large fishing areas from the public, we have to do it right."
Raftican said the Fish and Game Commission took far too many shortcuts in establishing the 25 percent closure around the Channel Islands.
Only three of the five Fish and Game Commissioners voted on the closure, and the two who missed the vote – president Michael Flores and Jim Kellogg – still haven't explained why they missed it.
"That was just one of the things wrong with the commission's action," Raftican said. "There are a number of reasons why we should get relief on this. Above all, when these marine protected areas are set up, they must be reviewed by the Legislature's joint committee of fisheries. It should have been reviewed by law, but it wasn't. It was a rush to judgment by the people who wanted the closures. We contend that effective fisheries management is the key."
Raftican said there are more questions about the inadequacy of the environmental document backing the closures and the entire process of establishing marine protected areas. He said budget cuts by the state due to the state's huge deficit will prevent the Department of Fish and Game from enforcing the closures at the Channel Islands.
In addition to the Ventura County Commercial Fisherman's Association, petitioners include the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, United Anglers of California, the Recreational Fishing Alliance of Southern California, the Sea Urchin Harvester's Association of California, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, the Southern California Commercial Fisherman's Association, the California Lobster and Trap Fisherman's Association and the Sportfishing Council of California.
It's a coalition of both sport and commercial fishermen, a strong, united voice if ever there was one.
