Fishermen fight over proposal to protect underwater seamounts.

California fishermen first learned of the proposal in May, out of the blue.

In a six-page, unattributed document, the proposal suggested turning several of the state’s offshore seamounts, ridges and banks into national monuments, permanently closing them to fishing as well as oil and gas development.

Under the federal Antiquities Act of 1906, presidents have the power to designate monuments, and implicitly, the proposal asked President Barack Obama to exercise that executive power.

“It’s fishing management by fiat,” says Diane Pleschner-Steele, director of the California Wetfish Producers Association.

“It’s not our intent to hamstring any fishermen.”

Pleschner-Steele and other California fishing interests banded together to fight the proposal, principally on the grounds that it circumvents the Magnusson-Stevens Act, which cedes fishery management to eight regional councils across the nation in a process that includes input from scientists and fishermen.

A revised proposal started circulating in June, and had a few key differences: First, it removed the word “monument” and called for a “robust public consultation process.” Second, it allows recreational fishing in the areas proposed for protection.

“By allowing recreational fisheries, they’re trying to divide and conquer, but we’re not going for it,” Pleschner-Steele says.

Among the partners behind the proposals is Marine Conservation Institute, and MCI President Lance Morgan, a marine biologist, disagrees that he’s trying to avoid due process, and says that’s just how these things get done.

He argues the underwater features are critical areas for protection, and says right now he and other conservationists are tweaking the proposal yet again so it’s something everyone can live with. Recently, two southern California underwater banks – Tanner and Cortes – have been removed from the proposal because of pushback, and an exemption has been added to allow albacore fishing in all the proposed areas of protection.

“It’s not our intent to hamstring any fishermen at all,” Morgan says.

Yet Mike Ricketts, president of Monterey Commercial Fishermen’s Association, worries that barring further areas from fishing could make it impossible for some fishermen to make a living.

“They’re taking more ground all the time, and it’s not going to give us any options for lateral movement,” Ricketts says.

“If you can’t make it in one fishery, you should have a fishery to fall back on, but we’re losing those.”