The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) voted on Wednesday, April 23 to advance the three existing proposed alternatives for the North Coast Central Process, including the proposal endorsed by a broad coalition of fishing groups, to the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC), resulting in a “partial victory” for fishing groups.

“Our effort has extended for 15 months, with over 50 days of formal meetings and public workshops, to develop and adopt recommended alternative MPA proposals for the north central coast,” said Susan Golding, chair of the task force. “We are confident that the work of all the stakeholders and the task force has created an excellent preferred alternative that will increase ocean protection.”

“All three stakeholder proposals moved forward intact and without tweaking,” said Ben Sleeter of the Coastside Fishing Club. “This was always our primary objective – get our option in front of the Commission. We accomplished this goal.”

Each proposal establishes a series of marine protected areas (MPAs) as required under the MLPA, but Proposal 2-XA, the alternative supported by the American Sportfishing Association and the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, has the “least economic impact by minimizing unnecessary closures to recreational fishing while placing a high priority on marine resources conservation,” according to a statement from the American Sportfishing Association.

The Task Force’s recommendations come at a time when fishermen have been hammered by increasing depth and seasonal restrictions on groundfish by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) that amount to de-facto MPAs. In fact, the entire Continental Shelf of California has been off limits to rockfish and lingcod anglers for nearly a decade.

More recently, the PFMC closed salmon fishing along the California and most of the Oregon coast, due to the collapse of the Central Valley chinook, resulting in an unprecedented economic disaster for fishing communities along the coast.

The MPA proposals are based on the efforts of a group of 45 stakeholders and their alternates that worked with MLPA Initiative staff in an intensive stakeholder process. Marine constituencies represented in the stakeholder group included recreational angling and diving, commercial fishing, ports and harbors, conservation, business, and other government agencies with marine protected area responsibilities.

“After 12 months of formal meetings, innumerable informal meetings, and input and review from a science advisory team, the stakeholder group developed three MPA proposals for the north central coast, identified as proposals 1-3, 2-XA and 4,” according to a statement from the Task Force. “The task force determined that all three proposals were well-designed and worthy of consideration.”

The task force voted to blend elements of all three proposals in developing its “preferred alternative” that consists of nine state marine conservation areas (8.4% of the study region), two state marine parks (0.5%), eleven state marine reserves (11.6%), and two state marine recreational management areas (0.2%). The Task Force will present these four proposals to the FGC for its consideration at a June, 2008 meeting.

Although the American Sportfishing Sportfishing Association was pleased that the Task Force forwarded 2-XA to the Commission for their consideration, they were disappointed that 2-XA was not cited as the preferred alternative.

“Proposal 2-XA is the alternative that has the least impact on California’s economy, particularly in coastal communities that rely on tourism and destination dollars, while at the same time protecting and enhancing our marine resources,” said ASA Ocean Resource Policy Director Patty Doerr in a statement by the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans (PSO) “It should have the Task Force’s full support.”

“We commend the task force for advancing Proposal 2-XA, and thank all of the anglers and boaters who took the time to attend meetings, write letters, make calls and send emails. We look forward to the Fish and Game Commission embracing the benefits offered by proposal 2-XA, “she added.

Several hundred recreational fishermen attended the BRTF hearing to show their unified support for Proposal 2XA, while thousands more sent emails and letters of support. The Partnership for Sustainable Oceans includes the American Sportfishing Association, Coastside Fishing Club, Southern California Marine Association, Sportfishing Association of California, United Anglers of Southern California, National Marine Manufacturers Association and Northern California Kayak Anglers.

Other organizations that supported 2-XA include the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Golden Gate Fishermen’s Association, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA, United Pier Fishermen of California, California Fisheries Coalition, Salmon Restoration Association, North Coast Fishing Association, Sonoma County Abalone Network Salmon Trollers Marketing Association and the NorCal Dive Club.

Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the RFA, brought letters of support for alternative 2-XA from the Fort Bragg City Council, Point Arena City Council, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and the Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission tot the meeting. “We thank them for their support of fishermen in these difficult times for us,” said Martin.

“The decision was a partial victory, but there is a lot of more work to be done, particularly in the northern part of the region from Point Reyes to Point Arena,” said Martin. “RFA remains concerned about the impact of a proposed Abalone Closure off the Stornetta Ranch because this would put all of the pressure on other access points. Abalone don’t move from one area like fish do. Furthermore, this is a species specific proposal that moves away from the marine ecosystem style of management that the MPLA was supposed to provide.”

Martin was also very concerned about the “odd role” the California's Department of Parks & Recreation has played in the regional stakeholder group, in a triple role as stakeholders, as regulators and as enforcement authority.

“The RFA wrote to the Department about their policy on marine reserves located at important public access sites, but we received no reply, and cannot find any reference in the State Parks and Recreation Commission's minutes reflecting any discussion about MLPA policy where the public users of the state park system could have weighed in with comment,” he stated. “Several of the alternatives contain MPAs designated as proposed State Marine Parks (no recreational and commercial fishing allowed) and we ask that these be designated as State Marine Conservation Areas (recreational fishing and commercial take allowed) with the same regulations.”

RFA’s proposal would streamline the regulatory authority of the MLPA and remove a quirk in the original legislation that grants the State Parks and Recreation Commission a say in fishing regulations. “This change would place sole authority for fishing regulations in the proposed MPAs under the Fish and Game Commission, without altering the goals, objectives or regulations for these MPAs,” he observed.

Martin noted that the State Parks & Recreation Commission is meeting in Fort Bragg at Town Hall on Main St, on May 16th at 9 am, with a public comment period available to question the Commission on their MLPA policy

Ben Sleeter was pleased that the Task Forward forwarded Proposal 2-XA to the Commission, but criticized the Task Force for the manner in which they adopted the “composite alternative.”

“What they did was select pieces from each of the three proposals and patch them together in an attempt to make everybody happy (or equally unhappy),” said Sleeter. “They started in the north and moved south. My aggravation comes from the fact that they used Proposal 1-3 as their ‘base’ proposal. They got away with this because they were sold the line that it had ‘cross interest support’ – something that is totally wrong!“

He also noted that 2XA was the only proposal that met every single SAT (Science Advisory Team) guideline. “All of a sudden the SAT guidance was ‘just guidance’ and not nearly as important had the shoe been on the other foot, “he concluded.

“From the RR MPA and south we got basically 2-XA. They may have used other proposal numbers but the real result is that 2-XA was taken almost completely in this region including our option at Duxbury,” Sleeter said.

Upon the FGC’s final vote, the North Central Coast Phase of this process will conclude and the Southern California Phase (encompassing Point Conception to the Mexican border) will begin.

For frequent updates about the PSO’s efforts on behalf of recreational fishermen within the MLPA process, please visit www.keepamericafishing.org.

Proposal 2XA Provides Best Conservation While Least Impact Upon Economy

Using available economic and fishing data, a study recently released by the PSO demonstrates that the other proposals forwarded to the Commission could have a devastating effect on marine recreational fishing and boating and the North Central Coast economy.

The study illustrates that the adoption of the other proposals would result in higher economic losses of up to a 30 percent in retail sales, jobs and state and local tax revenues, compared to 2-XA, by prohibiting fishing in 14 percent of the study area. The BRTF Composite, the task force’s preferred alternative, was not included in the economic study because it did not exist at the time.

“The BRTF developed its preferred alternative by combining aspects of the other three proposals in an attempt to create a compromise between all the parties,” said ASA Vice President Gordon Robertson. “But while the exact economic impact of the BRTF Composite is unknown, it will certainly be greater than that of Proposal 2-XA. The PSO supports 2-XA as a model for the future success of the MLPA process as a whole and encourages all California anglers and boaters to support Proposal 2-XA.”

California’s saltwater anglers spend nearly $1.3 billion per year on fishing equipment, transportation, lodging and other expenses associated with their sport. With a total annual economic impact of nearly $2.3 billion, California saltwater fishing supports over 1,880 jobs and generates over $70 million in wages and over $160 million in state tax revenues each year.

Through the federal manufacturers excise tax on fishing tackle and the federal tax on motorboat fuel, California receives millions of dollars each year for fisheries management and conservation. In 2008, the state will receive approximately $19.9 million. The state receives an additional $63 million for fisheries management and conservation through fishing license sales.

Robertson further said, “This is the most funding California has ever received from the taxes. Realistically, this amount will continue to grow provided anglers and boaters continue to purchase fishing equipment and boat fuel. In these uncertain economic times, California cannot afford to lose the support of its anglers and boaters.”