California is recognized worldwide for protecting its Pacific Coast from development and pollution. As for ocean wildlife – the fish, plants, mussels and mammals – well, we've been pretty happy eating right through them along with the rest of the world.
But now California is turning that tide by creating a series of new "marine protected areas," or watery wildernesses where fish can escape the hook and net. By giving fish room to grow bigger and more prolific, the hope is that all wildlife in the sea will benefit, and so will the people who eat them.
At meetings in Pacifica today and Thursday, state officials get a first look at plans for "marine protected areas" along 360 miles of the Pacific Coast between Santa Cruz and Mendocino.
It is the second phase of a multiyear effort to eventually cover the entire coast with zones where fishing is banned or restricted. In the first phase, 29 preserves were created in 2007 between Santa Cruz and Lompoc.
The process began with the Marine Life Protection Act in 1999, which recognized that fish need protected ocean just as deer and bear need protected forest.
The region north of Santa Cruz is considered one of the world's most productive fisheries, where huge plankton blooms form the foundation of the ocean food chain, supporting wildlife in and out of the water along the coast.
Yet some of the most treasured game in the sea – such as salmon, rockfish and abalone – continue to struggle despite rigid controls on fishing seasons and gear.
"Damaged fish stocks have not responded to traditional fishery management measures. Everybody can see that," said Richard Charter, a Bodega Bay resident and government relations consultant for Defenders of Wildlife. "We really have a responsibility to bring back those populations before they become extinct."
Five proposals have been developed so far by teams of interest groups examining science and environmental data as well as fishing industry concerns. They all address only state waters, which extend three miles from shore, along with the Farallon Islands.
By April, a blue-ribbon task force and the state Fish and Game Commission are likely to choose one option for further study, with a final decision by year's end.
The idea has been controversial among fishermen, who are reluctant to give up treasured fishing grounds whether they fish for fun or to pay the bills.
The five options differ mainly in the limits proposed near Bolinas and Gualala and around the Farallon Islands.
The protected zones represent only a fraction of the total coast. The hope is that boosted productivity will spill over into the open ocean, restoring the total catch to levels not seen in generations, and also increasing food supplies for seabirds, seals, abalone and all the ocean's wildlife.
Still, fishermen would like to see fewer closed areas.
"Some of these near-shore areas can amount to a major portion of a fisherman's income, even though they may be small areas," said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "This notion that we can create 'gated communities' in the sea and then expect everything is secure and protected – it just doesn't work that way."
He cautions, for instance, that no new rules are proposed to prevent sewage and other polluted runoff from entering the ocean from coastal cities.
There are also doubts that the state Department of Fish and Game can adequately patrol the new closure areas, given a game warden force depleted by budget cuts and low salaries.
Yet Grader has high hopes that the preserves will work.
Charter said the end result for all Californians, in 10 or 20 years, will be more fish on the plate and more wildlife to enjoy viewing from shore.
"We live in a state that is madly in love with the ocean," he said. "This isn't about blame. This is about bringing back an ecosystem in trouble before it's too late."
Call The Bee's Matt Weiser, (916) 321-1264.
