FISHING ORGANIZATIONS FILE SUIT NO-TAKE AREAS ARE CHALLENGED.

Byline: Bill Becher Special to the Daily News

Three Southern California sport-angling organizations have joined commercial fishermen in a lawsuit challenging regulations that will close about 175 square miles of ocean at the Channel Islands to all fishing effective Jan. 1.

The groups, including the Sportfishing Association of California (SAA), United Anglers of Southern California and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of Southern California, asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order to halt implementation of the controversial marine reserves approved by the California Fish and Game Commission, which sets fishing regulations. The suit also asks the court to enjoin the Department of Fish and Game, which enforces regulations, from establishing the Channel Islands Marine Protected Areas.

The commission voted 2 to 1 to establish the no-take zones after a contentious hearing in Santa Barbara in October.

``It's the first time I've ever seen commercial cooperate with recreational,'' said Illson New, the attorney for the fishermen. ``Usually, they're throwing rocks at each other.''

The amended complaint filed this week alleges 38 instances in which the commission violated the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires an assessment of the environmental impact of new government regulations.

The complaint claims the commission and the DFG used flawed science and failed to address enforcement costs or consider possible adverse environmental impacts if the reserves are established.

The lawsuit also alleges the commission failed to give adequate notice of the meeting where the regulations were adopted. New, who specializes in fish-and-game cases, said the groups filed a request this week for the commission to reconsider its decision. Robert Treanor, executive director of the Fish and Game Commission, said the request for reconsideration had been received but no decision had been made on whether the commission would grant it.

DFG biologists say the no-take areas are needed to restore depleted fish stocks and serve as insurance against deficiencies in fishing regulation and the impact of natural events like El Nino. But the sport anglers strongly disagree.

``There were a number of organizations, both sport and commercial, that were pretty upset over the way that the whole process was handled,'' said Bob Fletcher, president of the SAA. He cited the absence of two of the commission members at what he called one of the most important decisions ever made by the five-member board that sets fishing regulations in California.

The commission operated for nearly two years with only three members until vacancies were filled this year.

Fletcher said the newest commissioner, Robert Hattoy, seemed to have made his mind up before the public had the chance to comment.

The other commission member who voted for the reserves, Sam Schuchat, said, ``I think it was the right decision. It's a new way of managing fisheries, and new things are always controversial.''

Schuchat predicted that people would thank the commissioners in 20 years when they enjoy excellent fishing at the boundaries of the reserves. He doubts the commission's decision will be overturned, saying the environmental report was ``the size of the New York phone book. No controversial environmental decision has been made in California without a lawsuit.''