lloydlevine It’s too bad the American Sportsfishing Association doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good story in its fight against the Marine Life Protection Act.
In a recent edition of American Sportfishing http://www.wonews.com/t-LegislativeUpdate_010810.aspx, the president of the Beltway-based American Sportsfishing Association, Mike Nussbaum ranted about the MLPA process, apparently without the benefit of accurate information.
Fortunately, the author of the legislation, former Assemblyman Fred Keeley and I set him straight.
In a recent letter, we scolded Nussman for misrepresenting the MLPA and the current implementation process . With false information and inaccurate statistics, his comments undermine the honest debate underway in our state over this landmark legislation that has the support of many members of our state’s fishing community.
For example:
ASA’s statement: Citing an NBC News/Wall Street Journal study, he wrote “only 23 percent of Americans said they trust that our government is doing what’s right….This is certainly the case in California where policy makers have mislead [sic] the sportfishing and boating industries throughout the state’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) planning and implementation process.”
The Truth: A 2006 poll of California voters by the highly respected Public Policy Institute of California found that 71% of residents favor the creation of more marine reserves off the California coast, even if it means restricting some areas to commercial and recreational fishing. Furthermore, 75% think it is a good idea to create new Marine Protected Areas in about 10-20% of the ocean waters along the California coast. That’s just what California is doing.
ASA’s statement: “California is doing its very best to restrict the state’s millions of saltwater anglers from enjoying their sport in its shortsighted and fiscally irresponsible quest to establish far reaching, marine protected areas—essentially no-take zones—in the state’s coastal waters.”
The Truth: The marine protected areas that a wide range of stakeholders are developing for California are far from “far reaching.” Through the MLPA Initiative the state has established MPA networks on the Central and North-Central Coasts covering about 20 percent of state waters in these two regions with approximately ten percent of each region included in no-take state marine reserves. Recreational fishermen have been vigorously engaged in this effort and their involvement is reflected in the final MPA locations and regulations.
On the South Coast, the Fish and Game Commission is considering several proposals for MPAs; the one with broadest support would add 17 no-take zones covering 5.4% of state waters off southern California. During an earlier process, the state established no-take zones covering about 131 square miles of state waters around the offshore Channel Islands. By the end of 2010, then, no-take zones will cover only just over 10% of 3,525 square miles of state waters between the border with Mexico and Mendocino County. Fishermen will enjoy fishing opportunities in 90% of state waters.
Also, FYI, there are not “millions of saltwater anglers” in California. In 2008, there were only 1.1 million marine recreational fishermen along the entire west coast, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service. In California in 2008, 1.2 million anglers bought resident fishing licenses, according to statistics of the California Department of Fish and Game; less than half of these fishermen fished in ocean waters of the state. To fish in southern California, where by far most ocean recreational fishing in the state takes place, just 257,000 fishermen bought necessary stamps, according to Department of Fish and Game statistics. And while the number of Californians buying annual fishing licenses declined by 20% between 1990 and 2009, the number of Californians buying stamps to fish in ocean waters off southern California declined by 39%; in both cases, most of the decline occurred before 2001.
ASA statement: “Frankly, we deserve more from California’s resource policy makers who don’t seem to mind taking industry and anglers’ money….Between the excise tax and state fishing license fees, $80 million per year is dropped into California’s budget, a fact that seems lost on California’s MLPA implementation officials.”
The Truth: Sport fishing in the ocean has been a declining source of revenue to fund programs to ensure proper management. According Department of Fish and Game statistics, revenues from the sale of sport fishing licenses and stamps in California have declined from $60.6 million in 1990 to $55.8 million in 2008 when adjusted for inflation. Note that these statistics include both ocean sport fishing and the much larger number of freshwater fishermen.
California taxpayers have made other major investments of tax dollars in conservation and environmental programs that benefit the fish that recreational fishermen take. These investments include multi-billion bonds supporting diverse projects to maintain or restore water quality of streams, lakes, and coastal waters, to acquire or restore habitats, and to conduct science critical for effective management and conservation.
ASA’s statement: “In hindsight, it’s clear that MLPA resource policy makers have never viewed us as full partners in the MLPA process relegating us to minority representation on the task forces and misleading us every step of the way.”
The Truth: Recreational fishing interests, including party boat owners and operators, have been heavily represented on each regional stakeholder group. Each regional stakeholder group, which has exercised lead responsibility for designing MPAs, has included representatives of commercial and recreational fishing, marinas and harbors, local government, consumptive and non-consumptive divers, conservation organizations, and other interests. That is, these groups have included representatives of the many Californians that have a stake in the health of our ocean waters. Even so, fishermen, especially recreational fishermen, have been represented by more members of the stakeholder groups than any other interest.
o Of 56 members of the Central Coast stakeholder group, recreational fishing interests held 10 seats.
o Of 45 members of the North-Central Coast stakeholder group, 13 represented recreational fishing interests.
o On the South Coast, of 64 members 15 represented recreational fishing interests (including 2 representing spearfishing). On the South Coast, recreational fishing interests aligned with commercial fishing representatives, who held another nine seats.
Fish and other marine life flourishes in marine protected areas
This is just one way in which the concerns of fishing interests were incorporated into the MPA proposals that were forwarded to the Fish and Game Commission. Yet, ASA continues to attack the process. Apparently, the significant representation of recreational interests throughout the process isn’t enough for ASA, which wants its interests and the interests of its gear-manufacturer members to dominate all others.
While we’re hopeful ASA finds the facts useful in future discussions of California’s Marine Life Protection Act, we’re not counting on it. The foreign fishing interests behind the so-called “Partnership for Sustainable Oceans” (www.somethingsfishyaboutpso.com) apparently care more about their short-term profits than California’s marine resources.
