The California Fish and Game Commission, in a heated and contentious meeting in Monterey on August 15, voted to select a preferred alternative for a network of marine protected areas stretching from Pigeon Point in San Mateo County to Point Conception in Santa Barbara County.

The proposal includes 29 marine protected areas (MPAS) encompassing approximately 204 miles of ocean, 18 percent of state waters along the Central Coast. Approximately 8 percent of this total area, 94 square miles, is designated as no-take marine reserves, while the remainder will allow some form of recreational and/or commercial fishing, according to John Carlson, Executive Director of the Commission.

The over 300 people who attended the meeting at the Monterey Beach Hotel included commercial and recreational anglers from the California Fisheries Coalition group of 27 fishing organizations, and no take reserve proponents like the Ocean Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club.

The grueling six-year MPLA process has created a deep, bitter rift between fishing and environmental groups, who have in the past been frequent allies on water and habitat issues. The Commission’s decision is expected to have a huge impact upon the charter boat industry and private boaters, who are already, subjected to severe restrictions along the coast that amount to de facto marine reserves.

The decision angered many recreational anglers and commercial fishermen who were hoping for a less restrictive package incorporating elements of the “Fisherman’s Alternative,” or Package 1, developed by the California Fisheries Coalition and three notable fishery scientists.

In fact, Mike Flores, president of the Commission and an avid fisherman and hunter, left the previous meeting on August 2 with the understanding that they had approved the Department of Fish and Game’s compromise proposal, Package P, with suggested incorporated into the proposal from the other three packages.

“The Commission asked for alternatives added to Package P – then all of a sudden the Commission members want to adopt Package 3R which isn’t part of the discussion,” said Flores. “We had a compromise and then they threw it out of the window.”

Flores and Jim Kellogg put a motion on the table to adopt the less restrictive Fisherman’s Proposal, but Commissioners Robert Hattoy, Cindy Gustafson and Richard Rogers quickly voted it down. In the end, Kellogg and Hattoy voted with the other commissioners for the Commission’s preferred alternative, a combination of the Fish and Game staff’s recommended alternative, “Package P ” and the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force alternative, “Package 3R.”

Many political insiders believe that campaign season politicking behind the scenes led to the decision that will close many sections of many popular fishing areas off the Central Coast. The new closures will impact fishing grounds at Ano Nuevo, Natural Bridges, Elkhorn Slough, the Monterey Peninsula, Point Sur, Big Creek, Piedras Blancas, Cambria, Point Buchon and Vandenburg.

“I sit here with mixed emotions,” said Flores. “Part of me is happy that we’re taking the first step in creating an MPA network. But I’m concerned about the collateral damage to our fisheries – this plan will effectively wipe out the commercial and recreational fisheries of Morro Bay. I’ll support the proposal, but it’s not what I wanted. I wanted to do this process incrementally. I was trying to strike a balance.”

Fishing groups were aghast with the decision, while some environmental groups and Commissioner Robert Hattoy, who frequently interrupted comments by the public and other commissioners in a vitriolic and out of control manner, felt the decision didn’t go far enough.

“We lost an historic chance to be bold and responsible in our actions,” said Hattoy. “I would give the plan a C grade. We did not do 3R, the Blue Ribbon Panel package, justice.”

The Commission considered four proposals ranging from the most to least restrictive. The “environmentalist” proposal, 2R, would close about 13 percent of state waters to fishing, while Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Blue Ribbon Task Force’s option, 3R, would close 10 percent. The Fisherman’s Package, Package 1, advocated for 5 percent no-take reserves, while the “compromise” plan pushed by the Department of Fish and Game called for 8 percent. The Commission’s final decision would provide for 8 percent total closures in 15 reserves.

Only one of the proposals, Package 1, incorporated the huge de-facto reserves that already exist on the coast because of draconian rockfish and other fishery restrictions of commercial and recreational fishermen.

“The Commission is obviously rushing to provide the Governor with a claim of ocean protection, choosing to clearly put political science ahead of biological science,” said Vern Goehring, manager of the CFC. “The CFC encouraged the Commission to move forward with a plan balanced soundly on environmental, sociological and economic benefits, not bad science and political rhetoric.”

Tom Hafer, of the Morro Bay Fisherman’s Organization said, “It’s not fair trying to protect the ocean entirely on the backs of men, women, families and small businesses. We are being used as a scapegoat, a political pawn and cover up to divert attention from pollution and development.”

During the meeting, Monterey City Council members said they supported the Fisherman’s Alternative, while Pacific Grove City Council members said they wanted make their entire coast of their city into a marine reserve. Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, pointed out the hypocrisy of the cities of Pacific Grove and Carmel pushing to kick recreational and commercial fishermen off the water while they continue to pollute Monterey Bay.

“I’m a corporate industrial extractor,” Grader quipped, referring to highly inaccurate and inflammatory emails sent out by “activists” in Pelican Network and the Ocean Conservancy that denigrated commercial and recreational fishermen.

“I was at the State Water Resources Control Board meeting that began at 9 am at the Monterey Conference Center where the real discussion of marine conservation is taking place – pollution and storm water runoff. The cities of Pacific Grove and Carmel that are clamoring for these reserves still don’t have NPDES permits for their discharges – they are some of Monterey/’s biggest polluters. This meeting is packed – while the other meeting was nearly empty.”

Members of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Coastside Fishing Club and United Anglers of Southern California all testified in favor of Package 1.

“As the Science Director of the Coastside Fishing Club, I am requesting that you implement MPLA Package 1,” said Dan Wohlford. “This is the only package that strikes a reasonable le balance between denying public access to a public resource while achieving the objectives of the MLPA. All of the other packages overly restrict public access without justifiable cause and will bring undue harm to the recreational public, to the ocean communities and their families.”

The most alarming testimony in the meeting – that pointed to the illegitimacy of the MPLA process - was when Rudy Rosales of the Esselen Indian Tribe, representing the indigenous people of the Monterey Bay area, said that his 535-member tribe had never been consulted about the MPLA Stakeholder Process.

“Nobody ever got hold of us regarding this process and we have 4 sacred sites in the region,” he stated. “SB18, that passed the California legislature last March, requires that state agencies contact the legitimate organized tribe of that region whenever they’re plans or activities impact that tribe’s sacred sites. All we want to is do is protect our sacred sites.”

During one of the infamous “stakeholders” group meetings a couple of years ago, Jim Martin, West Coast Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, and I strongly urged the Blue Ribbon Commission to contact the local Indian tribes about the MPA process, but apparently they never did. Both Martin and me were outraged when we heard that the local tribe hadn’t been consulted about the process.

In addition, Martin charged that the 2 year public MPLA process was “largely ignored by the administration, the Commission and the news media that swarmed to cover the meeting.”

“It turned out to be one of Governor Schwarzenegger's campaign events,” summed up Martin. “Eager to convince the state's independent voters that he is ‘strong on environmental issues,’ the Governor's campaign staff took an active interest in the Commission's decision. The Commission chose the most restrictive options possible and made these decisions with full knowledge that existing fishery management has succeeded in rebuilding important west coast fish stocks such as lingcod.”

Fortunately, the California Fisheries Coalition still believes there is still hope for the fishermen as the Commission has included Package 1, “the fishermen’s package,” in the CEQA analysis. The CFC is confident that the analysis will result in Package 1 showing the least environmental, social and economic “unintended consequences” of all packages being considered.

Before the proposed MPAs take effect, the Commission’s selected proposals and alternatives must undergo California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review and regulations must be promulgated. Both processes will include additional public hearings. “It’s important to note that following the CEQA process, the Commission can correct this misguided action, “concluded Vern Goehring.