|
GETTING RID OF GILL NETS: The California Approach
by Tom Lewis
The destructive nature of gill nets has been well documented in every part of the world. Gill nets entangle everything that swims into them, and are an extremely non-selective method of fishing. There are a variety of types of gill nets, but all fall into two major categories. Drift gill nets, as the name implies, drift with the current. One end of the net is attached to a buoy and the other end is attached to the fisherman's boat. The primary target species in California are swordfish and sharks. The other category of gill nets are set nets. These nets are anchored to the seafloor at both ends and are generally used closer to shore than drift nets. They catch a variety of target species, including halibut, rockfish and several other bottomdwelling fish species. Both types of gill nets are generally in the water for 12- to 24-hour periods.
Animals that are accidentally caught are called non-target species, and include unwanted species of fishes, marine birds and a variety of marine mammals. In studies done in California, the non-target species by-catch has ranged between about 40% of the total catch in several studies, to 72% in one study.
Fisheries are in decline all over the world, and gill nets are one of the major contributing factors. Unfortunately, there are very little data on the impact of incidental takes on marine mammal populations, except for some species that are known to have been depleted. Despite numerous area closures and other restrictions, sea otter populations in central California have not grown at the normal rate for years, probably because of entanglements in gill nets. Harbor porpoises in both the north Pacific and north Atlantic have been heavily impacted, with some local populations in critical danger.
In 1987, ACS passed a policy calling for the elimination of the use of gill nets. However, we were also concerned about the plight of the fishermen who would be displaced by a ban on this fishing method. To ease the burden on fishermen, our policy called for a gradual elimination period and monetary compensation for the displaced fishermen.
Our policy also called for alternative fishing gear research and assistance to fishermen to move into another type of fishery. Alternative gear has been a subject of many meetings between environmentalists and fishermen since the early 1980s. Some possible new types of fishing gear have been identified, but fishermen have never actively attempted to use them.
Later in 1987, I received a call from Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress), who was looking for support for her bill to eliminate gill nets in California. As it turned out, her bill nearly mirrored our policy. For the next three years, ACS was the lead environmental organization in the effort to pass this bill through the state legislature, and I represented ACS on the committee that wrote the language for this legislation.
When the bill came up one vote short, Assemblywoman Allen decided to take this effort directly to the voters of California in the form of a ballot proposition. After a great deal of hard work on the part of many people, and particularly the California ACS chapters, enough signatures were gathered to place the measure on the 1990 ballot. The people of California voted Proposition 132 into law in November 1990.
|
Gill nets catch more than just fish. They are deadly to a wide range of animals, including seabirds and marine mammals such as this California sea lion. (Photo by Howard Hall/Howard Hall Productions) |
The proposition called for a gradual elimination of the use of gill nets over a four-year period. The ban would apply to the area within three nautical miles of the California coastline, between Point Arguello in central California south to the Mexican border, and in waters less than 70 fathoms (420 feet) or within one mile, whichever is less, around the Channel Islands. In addition, the bill provided monetary compensation for displaced fishermen. Funding for this compensation was provided by a $3.00 increase in the cost of a sportfishing license. Therefore, the measure was funded by the sportfishing community and not the taxpayers. This unique approach had never been tried in the United States.
The compensation system gave greater benefits to those fishermen who gave up their permits earlier in the plan. Those who surrendered their fishing permits in the first year of the elimination period would receive the maximum amount of compensation. If the permit was surrendered in the second year of the period, they would receive a smaller amount of compensation, and so on. Although ACS supported a higher level of compensation, the amount of compensation was set at one year's income, as calculated by an average of the last five years of the fishermens' income. The bill also called for the establishment of four new ecological reserves along the coast. There is no fishing allowed in these reserves; they are restricted to scientific research only.
In late 1993, fishing interests filed a lawsuit to overturn Proposition 132 based on constitutional grounds, and filed for an injunction to allow fishermen to continue fishing until the lawsuit could be heard in court in late March or early April 1994. A few days after January 1, 1994, when Proposition 132 was to be fully implemented, a judge in the superior court in San Diego denied the injunction. On March 11, the same judge declined to hear the lawsuit on the grounds that it had no merit. During this expensive legal process, the legal fees on behalf of Proposition 132 have been absorbed by The Dolphin Connection, headed by Ani and Jerry Moss. The marine ecosystem owes them a tremendous thank you.
While it is very regrettable that fishermen are affected by this legislation, and may lose their livelihood, we live in an era when the human population continues to rapidly expand and marine resources are finite. It is not logical for our society to continue to utilize a method of fishing that by its nature is indiscriminate. We must continue to seek methods of harvesting marine resources that selectively fulfill our needs, yet also address the many problems that are deteriorating the marine environment.
|
