Harbor Commission forwards letter urging Fish and Game Commission to ensure MPA petitions meet stakeholder and socioeconomic review

The Harbor Commission voted unanimously to forward a letter drafted by its commercial fishing work group asking the California Fish and Game Commission to ensure robust stakeholder engagement and socioeconomic analysis before acting on petitions that would expand marine protected areas.

Chair Adam Stanowick introduced the item after staff moved the matter to the top of the new‑business agenda. Commercial fisherman Chris Voss, speaking for the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, said the community is “not against marine protected areas,” but argued the state process has been “chaotic and disorganized” and risks closing important fishing grounds to local boat crews. Voss urged the commission and later the City Council to “declare a recognition of the value of our local fishing community” and to press the state to follow its fishing‑community policy when evaluating petitions.

A representative of a petitioner, Asia Hudson, marine conservation analyst and program manager at the Environmental Defense Center, asked the commission to postpone action on the agenda item to allow petitioners, the commission and staff to coordinate. Hudson said her organization had amended two petitions after outreach with local fishermen and highlighted evidence that marine protections can boost fisheries—citing a study showing, she said, a 225% increase in spiny lobster catch after six years in one case—but acknowledged some proposed closures would limit access for local fishers.

Several local business and fishing representatives spoke during public comment. Jamie Diamond, owner of Stardust Sport Fishing, supported the letter’s focus on socioeconomics and process, saying “we’re not a blanket group against everything.” Longtime fisher Harry Lornick said previous, well‑structured processes produced better outcomes and warned that some proposals could cut his urchin landings by as much as 80%.

Commissioner Nelson, who coordinated the work group that drafted the letter, described the measure as “a letter of concern, not a letter of opposition,” asking the Fish and Game Commission to defer decision‑making until the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s socioeconomic and stakeholder‑engagement requirements have been satisfied. The motion—moved by Vice Chair Steedman and seconded by Commissioner Nelson—passed on a unanimous vote.

What happens next: staff will transmit the work‑group letter to the California Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife will present its petition evaluations at a public meeting scheduled in early May, where the petition recommendations will be made public. The Harbor Commission and petitioners said they expect continued engagement as the state’s review proceeds.