Frequently Asked Questions

Who is the California Fisheries Coalition?
Established in 2004, the statewide CFC was formed with a single purpose - to provide a mechanism for recreational and commercial fishing groups to work together in a proactive manner on the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to ensure a credible, fair and science-based outcome.

The California Fisheries Coalition (CFC) consists of 26 ocean-dependent recreational and commercial fishing associations, seafood processors, abalone growers and kelp harvesters, contributing $5.5 billion annually to California's economy. Coalition membership encompasses more than 14,000 commercial fishermen, in excess of 4,000 fishing vessels, several million recreational anglers and more than 200 seafood companies. Approximately 172,000 people are employed by CFC partner businesses.

What businesses compose CFC partner businesses?
CFC's partner businesses include seafood processors, abalone growers, kelp harvesters and the hundreds of independent commercial fishermen businesses throughout our coastal communities. Some of the fishing industries include tuna, lobster, sea urchin, sardines, squid, salmon, and various ground fish species. In addition, recreational passenger fishing boat owners and the hundreds of private recreational fishermen are partners with the CFC.

What is the Marine Life Protection Act?
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was enacted in 1999, directing the Fish & Game Commission to re-examine and redesign the State's system of marine protected areas (MPAs), and to adopt an MPA network. The purpose of the new network is to protect marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems.

Is the CFC opposed to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)?
No, the CFC is not opposed to MPAs. CFC members appreciate that under certain circumstances marine reserves may help fish populations. The CFC feels that the key to MPAs is implementation at a measured pace with appropriate monitoring.

Does the California Fisheries Coalition support the MLPA?
The California Fisheries Coalition (CFC) supports a full and balanced implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act. The CFC believes that with a full and balanced implementation of the MLPA, the state can have a healthy ocean, secure marine wildlife populations and strong ocean dependent businesses and coastal communities.

Why was a Marine Life Protection Act Initiative proposed?
The Marine Life Protection Initiative? process began in August 2004 with approximately $7 million in private funds and $1.2 million in public funds, setting an arbitrary deadline for adopting a Central Coast network of marine protected areas (MPAs) prior to the November 2006 election.

Why hasn't the Marine Life Protection Act been fully executed?
The DFG attempted twice previously to implement the MLPA. However, due to the complexity of the analysis required and limited resources available it was unable make substantive progress and both efforts were terminated.

Why doesn't the CFC fully support the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative?
The main flaw with the MLPA Initiative is that additional restrictions on otherwise legal activities are being proposed when no real analytical evaluation has been done on existing regulations. The CFC believes that the MLPA Initiative is being implemented as if little or no protection already exist. CFC's argument is that full credit and recognition should be given to the existing regulations on fishing, then additional restrictions added only where necessary to meet the requirements of the MLPA.

If the MLPA is enacted, could there be negative ecological impacts?
Serious ecological damage could occur in non-marine protected areas if the MLPA is enacted in a needlessly expansive manner. Recreational and commercial fishing activities will relocate, causing unknown environmental impacts on the fewer remaining areas.

Why did the CFC commission a science review study?
The CFC has sponsored a review of the MLPA science advice because the MPA network proposals developed through the MLPA Initiative process pose potentially damaging socio-economic impacts to central coast fisheries and coastal communities and the process did not use the "best available science." The review was conducted by three respected West Coast marine biologists: Dr. Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, Dr. Carl Walters of the University of British Columbia and Dr. Richard Parrish, who retired this year from the National Marine Fisheries Service.

What were the conclusions of the peer review study?
The CFC's peer review contains the very good news that the conservation goals of the MLPA can be met without doing significant economic damage. It also concluded that implementing new regulations on top of existing comprehensive fishing regulations, as the MLPA process is doing, penalizes the thousands of people and businesses that depend on legal fishing activities for their livelihood and the hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy fishing as a sport and past-time.

The reviewers found that the science guiding the MLPA is flawed in at least four major aspects:

1. It failed to consider marine impacts from sources other than fishing (like climatic variation, non-point source pollution and coastal development), and therefore relies only on new fishing restrictions to meet conservation goals.
2. It failed to consider the ecosystem benefits of existing fishery-management rules and to integrate these benefits into its analysis.
3. It assumes that existing fishery protections are nonexistent or ineffective in keeping ecosystems healthy and sustaining species populations.
4. It failed to consider the ecosystem damage from shifting effort that could result from locking up the most prolific fishing areas.

How do CFC members co-operate with regulatory agencies?
Several CFC members work with regulatory agencies, conducting resource assessments, monitoring and data collection. For example, the California Wetfish Producers Association hired a marine biologist to design and teach its members data collection and monitoring systems. The California Sea Urchin Commission is implementing a comprehensive data collection protocol carried out by divers.

What other variables are impacting the health of our oceans?
The CFC is concerned that pollution and coastal development is not adequately being considered in the MLPA Initiative. Nothing addresses these other concerns. This legislation is, as a result, solely targeting fisherman and those communities whose local businesses and tourism industries rely on fishing. In MLPA reserves, fishing isn't just limited, it is prohibited.