Laguna Beach leaders want the California Fish and Game Commission to do more study of whether 1.5 square miles of beach and ocean between Table Rock and Three Arch Bay should be designated a no-fishing zone, mimicking the Marine Protected Areas along the rest of the city’s shoreline.
The commission’s Marine Resources Committee is expected to consider a petition submitted by the Laguna Bluebelt Coalition to change the access to that last segment of shore in March. This week, the City Council voiced support for the commission considering the petition, but fell shy of giving it their stamp of approval saying more research would be good.
The Bluebelt Coalition is asking the state wildlife department for an MPA boundary extension along South Laguna, from Aliso Beach through Three Arch Bay, to make the area a no-take, no-fishing zone like the rest of Laguna Beach’s shoreline. Local commercial sportfishing charters and lobster fishers oppose the idea, saying the loss of access would further reduce areas they typically now fish along the Orange County coastline and would negatively affect their livelihood and the legacy of living from the sea.
After listening to more than a dozen speakers on both sides for more than an hour on Tuesday, Feb. 25, the council said it supports the petition’s review, but wants the wildlife commission to do more analysis and would like to be included in further discussions and processes.
“This should be science-based,” said Councilmember Hallie Jones, who has championed environmental causes most of her life and was part of the movement more than a decade ago to establish the protected areas, which she called a deal made with the fishing community. “Is there a science-based reason to increase MPAs, it there a science-based reason to adjust the rule that still allows some take and still protects our marine life?”
“This may not be a popular thing to say, but there is no more sustainable way to eat fish than catching it for yourself and eating it for dinner,” Jones added. “I’m not a fisherperson, but we have to acknowledge that. So many commercial fisheries are not well run. That’s not what we are talking about here.”
The Bluebelt Coalition’s request follows results of a recent review of the MPAs’ first decade, which reported the extra protections have helped the local ocean ecosystem rebound.
In all, there are 124 MPAs designated statewide, with 50 of them off Southern California – they were created to help restore heavily fished and impacted sections of the California coastline.
Mike Beanan, co-founder of the Bluebelt Coalition and heavily involved in getting the initial MPA designation in the rest of Laguna Beach, asked the City Council to support the expansion, hoping that would send a stronger message to the wildlife commission as it considers whether the petition should move forward.
“Working together, we’ve achieved a miraculous recovery,” Beanan said.
He said he recently swam off Thousand Steps Beach in the area proposed for expanded protection and described it as a “de-forested wasteland” with no kelp or fish. He compared that to swimming off the protected Crescent Bay Beach, which he said was “teaming with marine life and had lush kelp forests.”
“Laguna is the essential link between Palos Verdes and La Jolla,” he added. “Now is the time to state Laguna’s position before the analysis and discussions are made by Fish and Game. We already have an impressive record in implementing the MPAs through the city’s many coordinated programs aimed at sea life.”
Donna Kalez, who manages Dana Wharf Sportfishing & Whale Watching, said fishing and living off the sea is her family’s legacy – her father started the company in the Dana Point Harbor in 1971.
The area off South Laguna is where her boat captains take fishing charters, especially those with passengers who can’t take longer journeys such as older adults and children with special needs.
“The closure will put an undue hardship on us,” she said. “The current MPA has worked well and has achieved the spillover effects it was supposed to achieve. There is no scientific evidence that supports a need to expand the closure.”
Several lobster fishers spoke about making a livelihood from the ocean and their own passion for the sea and for a sustainable existence.
“There are a number of us that this will greatly affect our livelihood,” said Travis Vaughn. “You’ll walk down there, and you’ll see the area thriving. There are a lot of facts that affect what Mr. Beanan describes as a wasteland. No kelp: The sea floor is not conducive there and (there is) sand pumping. When it comes to the ocean, you have to think of everything.”
Environmental activist Rich German, who frequently paddleboards the area, said he understands Kalez’s points and empathizes with the fishers, he is in favor of the MPA expansion.
“When I first started, I didn’t see any fish,” he said. “Now, 10 years later, I describe what we have as ‘the greatest aquarium in the world.’ The amount of fish, marine life and wildlife is incredible.”
Having the city’s entire coastline designated as a no-take zone will also make enforcement easier, German said. “Now, it’s had to explain to people where the line ends. If it goes to the south end of town, it makes sense.”
Several council members praised the speakers for having the discourse in a polite and respectful way, especially given the controversy that has surrounded the topic for years.
“There were excellent points which underscore for me it does require further analysis,” Councilmember Bob Whalen said. “It may be true, as one lobsterman said, that extending it has adverse consequences for areas immediately south. It may be beneficial. There are lots of questions.
“I think we ought to ask the commission to do the work and ask about the science, hear about the economic impact and costs of extending it an extra 1.5 miles,” he added, “and see what they conclude.”
Leave a Reply