February 2002 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Shore Fish Needs Scrutinized

Nineteen species of nearshore fish need additional protection and management, according to an assessment by Cal Fish & Game. The agency released a draft management plan for nearshore fish - those found less than 120 feet from shore - this winter. A revised plan, incorporating feedback from public meetings, will come out this April and go through another round of Fish & Game Commission hearings (see calendar).

The agency ranked the state's fish by certain criteria - their range of habitat, level of current protection, and fishing pressure, among others. Among the 19 species needing help were grass rockfish, black rockfish and blue rockfish. One reason the plan singles out rockfish for management is that they're not federally regulated like salmon or other fish that move up and down the coast between states. "Most of them stick around," says Fish & Game's Eric Knaggs. "They really are a California species; they rarely travel more than 20 miles away."

The plan analyzed four alternative harvest control rules that would form the basis for managing the nearshore fishes. Alternatives included no change in management; establishing nearshore conservation areas; prohibiting fishing in 30-50% of the fishes' habitat; restricting gear and/or limiting commercial fishers to sports fishing gear; and establishing marine protected areas. The plan's preferred alternative included establishing marine protected areas (as fishery replenishment areas), to be used in conjunction with annual total catch limits. North, Central, and South Coast fisheries would be managed separately.

The Ocean Conservancy supported the preferred alternative although it would like to see the number of protected areas increased. In addition, it asked Fish & Game to make sure to choose areas of the right size, shape and characteristics so that "the fish can do what they need do in them," says the Conservancy's Karen Rana.

Contact: Karen Rana (415)979-0900 or Nancy Wright (831)649-2942 LOV

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project