Closure’s Net Effect Bad for Fishermen

Re: Proposed closure of the Malibu coastline to commercial fishing.

The citizens of Malibu do not learn well from history. In 1969-1970, California was spending taxpayer dollars to eradicate sea urchins. The urchin population was so large that it was decimating the kelp beds off the coast. Without the protection of the kelp forests, there was severe beach erosion which would have caused the loss of the expensive homes and other valuable property along the Malibu shoreline. Demise of the kelp forest would further degrade the environment by causing loss of habitat for numerous other species of fish and shellfish.

The proposed closure singles out and discriminates against commercial fishermen. The products harvested from this area do not belong to any one group. They belong to all U.S. citizens. This type of legislation has reduced a once great fishing nation to a country that has become dependent on foreign imports.

I earn 90% of my annual income from harvesting in the proposed closed area. Many other fishermen (lobster, sea urchin and sea cucumber) would also be put out of business. When you consider shore-based processing facilities and other related businesses, the job losses to California are staggering.

I hope Tom Hayden and the residents of Malibu get smart and drop this potentially costly and ill-conceived plan.

E. A. LUSK, Ventura