A FULLERTON INFORMER EXCLUSIVE
When sharks smell blood, they show up. When the media smells hysteria, they show up. When city officials smell what the media smells and put their noses together for an opportunity to wage a sort of elitist socioeconomic ethnic cleansing of an exclusive waterfront community, they appear to push the envelope as far as they can. The right to feed yourself is as basic as you can get and so much so that the framers of our beloved California Republic wrote it into our State Constitution in Article I Section 25.
What happened to the swimmer was tragic to say the least, and thank God he is O.K. What happened was an accident, plain and simple but If anyone is negligent here it is the city for not addressing the fact that there are dangerous sharks sharing the surf with with beach goers and for not banning swimming, surfing, and boating within 100 yards of the pier like almost all other cities do up and down the coast.
I want all involved to know that like we have always said all along, at the Fullerton Informer, there are two sides to every coin and every story. This one is especially newsworthy because it garnered such attention and the actions of city leaders appear to be so blatantly illegal.
Ironically, this an issue that I am revisiting from some 20 years ago in Newport Beach. The issue is when taxpayer funded government entities, in this case city officials, violate the public trust and jeopardize the very legal agreement that gives the beach city the ability to be a beach city, what is the city’s tideland grant. It, through Legislative enactment, deeds State property, such as tidelands and submerged lands to a municipal corporation, in this case, in revocable trust to the City of Manhattan Beach. S1955_Ch1427
What happened to the swimmer over the July 4th weekend was a tragic accident, but that is all it was. It was an ACCIDENT. There is inherent risk when entering the ocean to swim or dive. There is inherent risk when swimming near a public fishing pier where white sharks are known to congregate. Here is a photo just weeks before the attack adjacent to the pier. Tell me praytell, would you let your five year old swim there? Misguided City officials and ill-informed residents at the last council meeting declared that the pier area is safer than ever because the fisherman are gone. Really?
6-10-2014 manhattan-beach-sharks-closeup
The behavior of city officials, in my opinion, is criminal and the behavior of the media was par for their course. The slant was obvious and the fact that the media showed complete disregard for the illegal nature of the city’s actions is abhorrent. The fact that the media is going along for the ride while advocating for a fishing ban and not advocating for a swimming ban makes no sense. But hey, what else would you expect from the talking heads on the idiot box.
Instead of banning swimming in shark infested waters, they ban a legally protected activity-fishing, with an “emergency coastal development permit”. I believe that the city of Manhattan Beach is involved in illegal activity with its ridiculously issuing an emergency CDP for 60 days banning a legal and protected activity.
They should be banning swimming until they can sort out the fact that 2014 is an El Nino year and with the warm currents come food and sharks and swimmers.
The fact that they even considered making the fishing ban permanent at any point in the past while leaving the beach open to swimmers leads me to believe that there is incompetent legal counsel involved or worse- a concerted effort by some in city government to break the law to further an elitist agenda.
If the fishing ban is not lifted by the next council meeting, I am prepared to request an investigation with the State Attorney General’s office, put general counsel on notice at the State Land’s commission and look into a partial or full revocation of the city’s tideland grant.
As far as the media, they are all a bunch of big fat liars with the exception of NBC channel 4. They were the only ones that told the truth without the PETA pandering.
Well here is the version that the media won’t allow you to hear directly from the fisherman who has been threatened, vilified and even being subjected to threats of criminal prosecution and grand jury investigations by ridiculous grandstanding city officials in spite of the fact that HE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL. Here is the version from the fisherman in his own words. Much of what he has written has been omitted from the slanted reports pushing the fishing ban agenda. There is much more to this story. Here is the account from the fisherman-
“We arrived at Manhattan pier around 5:30 am 2 poles a piece 3 anglers 1 bag of 6 frozen sardines for bait.we set up our gear and casted out our lines around 6 am.only one pole each in the water due to lack of bait.40# mono with a 120# 6ft mono leader with a 5/0 circle hook mutu light by owner. With our big lines in the water we tried to catch bait such as mackerel or sardines.with no luck what so ever. A few lizard fish was all that bit. Not one bait fish in the water. We were sitting on the curb of the aquarium for about an hour playing games on our phones getting ready to leave.when my buddy’s pole started screaming. He picked up the pole set the hook.the fish made a bee line for Hermosa pier to the south. After 20 minutes he passed it to me. At this point the fish was approximately 150 to 175 yards away from the pier. It turned towards the shore and surfaced in the wave break 5 ft from a surfer 30 ft or so from shore. We seen that it was a shark. Not wanting to cut the line without warning surfers of the shark we screamed and yelled to clear the beach of everyone in the vicinity which is exactly what happened. Everyone that could hear us quickly exited the water. Eric Martin, the round house biologist was out there with us. In awe of the shark.we talked about it and he said not to cut the line yet as it might be a tagged shark. I was able to turn the sharks head out to deeper waters as it was on its way out i passed the pole to my buddy while i went to grab my knife. At this point Eric mentioned if he was out there he’d like to swim up to the shark just for the experience. I went to get the knife and we seen the swimmers approaching. My buddy tried to pull the shark towards us but was unable to do so. The swimmers were too far to warn.Heads in the water there was nothing we could do. Approximatly 200 yards off the south side of the pier we seen the shark jump but couldn’t tell if anyone was hit. About 30 seconds after we noticed something was serious. I didn’t have the pole in my hand at this time. I ran down the pier to the sand. I was there as they carried Mr. Robles out of the water. I was there as they treated him. I alerted an officer on the shore we were up there fishing and for her to come get our stories info and check our gear as she did. She then left and we cleaned up to leave. After receiving threats, we had to be escorted to our car. Quick history-we used to fish there almost every Saturday but due to constant hook ups with great whites we stopped fishing there for over a month. They were a nuisance.not what we were after. Like I said we use all mono leaders there. Any shark with teeth (gws makos) bite right through in a matter of seconds which is why the first 20 minutes of this ordeal we didn’t think it was a shark. It would have bit through.yes we target sharks.threshers soup fins leopards shovel nose.all of which pose no threat to people and all of which are unable to bite through our mono leader.
People hear shark and they automatically think we were targeting whites. Its not true and its perfectly legal to fish for those other species using the methods we use. In no way what so ever did we intend to cause harm to anybody in the water.While fishing there previous times groups of long distance swimmers would stop right in front of the pier, pull on our lines.and float there for as long as 10 minutes. We had told them numerous times we were fishing for sharks and it might not be safe. They would laugh like we were crazy.that video on you tube, which by the way was not ours, and there were over 50 people on the pier for this incident. You will hear joking and laughing. A comment was made about them seeing this shark and finally realize they’re there. No we didn’t hold it there on purpose and there was nothing we could do to stop it. Even if we cut our line that shark still had a hook in its mouth and was still gonna be upset.
With at least 175 yards of line attached to it if we did cut it it would have been bad for the shark and any swimmer in the area.all that line out there could easily tangle around any swimmer or object in the water and result in injury to the wading public or the shark. The intentions were to bring the shark as close as possible then cut the line to reduce risk of injury due to the length of attached line in the water. I no way what so ever did we intend for this tragic accident to happen. In no way what so ever did we intend to purposely endanger the public.like i said we cleared the beach of swimmers and surfers.and as soon as the long distance swimmers were close enough to warn they were warned also.we didn’t chum the waters.for what We fish for there’s no need to chum.and we didn’t have anything to chum with anyways. We most definitely didn’t use that 30 ft of wynch cable with a water bottle and marlin trolling lure that was brought in to the city council meeting that day. That’s preposterous to even think such a thing.we were fishing off a pier not deep sea trolling.that cable obviously had never even seen the water ever and was clearly a setup to fool the city council into thinking it was ours.
Absurd to even think something like that could be used off a pier.all 3 of us have fishing licenses and are well aware of the rules and regulations.were not ignorant hooligans from out of town who dont care about your city.we pay for parking and shop at your stores while were there just like everyone else.when we get to the pier we clean up any messes left by ppl who were there over night.we set up a kids swimming pool that we fill with mackeral and sardines for kids to come see and play with.when youth come by with their parents and want to try fishing we hand them a pole to try out.we interact with the public there in a very positive manner.we enjoy what we do and try to share it with others. Manhattan pier is one of the nicest piers in so cal and that’s why we fished there. Never had a problem with one person at all. We don’t drink alcohol or do drugs.We don’t tag the pier and we don’t try to scare people out there. We enjoy the atmosphere just like everyone else.i want to get into ideas that can hopefully prevent something like this from happening again.ill start with the sinks.those sinks are there for anglers to gut and clean there fish.sometimes very big fish.all the blood and guts that go into that sink drains directly into the water directly under the pier.We didn’t build those sinks.The city did. Maybe they should drain some where else. I am not a plumber so i cant fix that myself. That’s something the city needs to do.how about enforcing the clearance the swimmers should stay from the pier. There’s plenty of ocean to swim in. All we have is the pier to fish on. Every other pier has a boundary that swimmers are to stay from the pier and its enforced but not here.
How about putting some signs up warning the public that there are dangerous sharks in the water. It’s sad that people nowadays need to be warned bout such things but that’s the society we live in. Once again that’s not the anglers job. How about installing some kind of warning system at the end of the pier.a loud horn or even a phone that goes directly to the lifeguard stands.once again not the anglers job.If there was such a warning system maybe this could have been prevented.Those sharks are there. There is nothing you can do about it. That’s where they live. Instead of blaming the anglers for this incident lets look at ways we can prevent something like this from happening again. Banning fishing is not going to make the sharks leave.a few days after this no fishing ban was implemented great whites were spotted at the pier again. With not one angler out there.
To say these animals are gentle docile creatures is absurd. These are sharks.wild animals that can not be controlled. On the very same day in San Luis Obisbo county a surfer was laying on his board when a 8 to 10 great white slammed him off his board and bit the board in half.
He was able to get away safely. There was no one fishing anywhere near him.same sz great whites that are frequenting Manhattan beach. Open your eyes. The public is in danger and it has nothing to do with fishing. This ban should be immediately lifted and other restrictions should be imposed to protect the swimming public. This doesn’t fall on my shoulders . Everyone is so quick to blame me and fishing.Just because I don’t live there and I got a few tattoos and my past ain’t as pretty as some other people doesn’t mean any of this is my fault.I want to thank you for your time in reading this and considering other actions than banning fishing” .by Jason Hagemann-the fisherman
So there you have it gang. No gigantic hooks, no steel cable, no winch, NO broken laws, no illegal activity, nada. Yet the media never once mentioned THAT THE FISHERMAN CLEARED THE BEACH and aided the ailing swimmer on the beach, and profusely apologized. The scumbags in the media would have us believe the fisherman were sadistic creeps getting their jollies off of someone getting attacked by a shark. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Then again since when did the truth and the mainstream media stop being mutually exclusive terms?
So here we get to the meat and potatoes of the issue. First, in the interest of public safety, swimming, diving and surfing should be banned in shark infested waters, not fishing. I believe the greatest threat to public safety in Manhattan Beach right now is the city’s denial of reality. The fact is these sharks DO ATTACK unprovoked and we have children swimming in those waters while the fisherman are sent home.
Fishing is a protected right written into every beach city’s tideland grant spelling out the State Constitution article I section 25. It was done so as the right to feed yourself was and is one that is tantamount to being a free society.
When I placed a public records request over the phone for a copy of the city’s tideland grant, I was told over the phone that it would take 10 days to have it emailed to me. I then personally visited the City Clerk’s office and requested to personally inspect the document and was told that the documents were not ready nor were they available. The truth of the matter is that I pulled one up within about 16 seconds off of the State Land Commission’s website subsequent to my request. The Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as the Coastal commission are not comfortable with 60 days CDP being used for a fishing ban and neither are we. A CDP has never been used for banning a perfectly legal activity like fishing unless there was construction going on in or around an affected area. I was rather shocked myself when I looked over the city’s staff report.
In reality, there were plans to develop the piers, bulldoze homes, eliminate beach access by eliminating public parking and redevelop part of the Balboa Peninsula. It would have involved busing or trollying in vistors while removing public parking. At the same time I watched parking meters come out down Balboa Blvd when the sewer pipes were replaced and not get put back until I made a call to the Coastal Commission. There had been no hearing or permits pulled to eliminate public parking yet the red curbs went in anyway.
After much intimidation by law enforcement and strange unannounced personal visits to my home, on one very stormy and rainy February evening, I decided to draw the line in the sand. At the 2-26-96 Newport Beach City Council meeting I arrived and in hand, I called their bluff with a letter drafted and ready to be mailed to the acting Attorney General at the time, Dan Lungren. I also had copies ready to go to General Counsel at the State Lands commission along with my rep in the State Assembly at that time, Jim Morrissey, to begin the process of the possibility of a partial or full revocation of the city’s tideland grant if the fishing ban was enacted.
It could have turned Newport into a state beach. Newport officials have never implemented the illegal portions of the ordinance nor will they ever. The city manager shortly thereafter resigned and the fishing on the piers, the homes and parking down the center of Balboa Blvd still remain to this day.
The Manhattan Beach pier is built on State property below the high tide line which consists of submerged tidelands which through legislative enactment were deeded from the State to the City to be held in Public Trust. The beaches as well, are tidelands which are State property currently deeded to the city in an agreement subject to revocation if the public trust is violated. Expressly written into the grant is the State Constitution’s provision reserving in the people the absolute right to fish. Many beach cities are a dichotomy with both State and City beaches and consequently have NEVER attempted to cross the line. The City can restrict access to fisherman on the pier but the access has to be restricted to everyone. The City needs to work with the appropriate regulatory agencies where preemption exists in terms of gear restrictions and only as a last resort.
8.11.14-FGC-Letter-to-Manhattan-Beach
Jurisdiction is key here. A possible no take area of sharks in the form of a type of SMCA, combined with municipal code restrictions on steel leaders, line test and hook sizes coupled with a 100 yard buffer zone all around the pier banning swimming, diving, and boating will solve the problem. Any attempts at banning fishing must be accomplished via a Constitutional amendment. The city has absolutely no legal grounds to stand on when it comes to banning fishing. This in not my legal opinion but rather established fact.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic and by nature is a nation of laws. This very fact is directly responsible for the continued gainful employment of taxpayer funded city staff whose sole purpose is to navigate and enforce these laws.
I will never forget some 40 years ago, as an 8 year old boy, we would arrive at the Balboa pier around 3:30 am so that we would get a spot at the end. I will never forget the hundreds of dirt poor farm workers and immigrant laborers that lined the rails along side myself in eager anticipation of some of the most incredible runs of pelagics in the world where literally thousands of fish were caught in a matter of a few hours. At the time, the runs seemed if they would never end. They would fill buckets to take back to the other farm workers to supplement their diets as they could not afford to buy meat.
Things have changed I know. We don’t see runs like that anymore. Sadly, socioeconomically for many in our society things have not changed.
What remains the same is the fact that the right to fish is an absolute right clearly being preempted at the state level being subject to the terms and conditions that the legislature deems necessary. This puts the City Council at the back of the bus. The city must tread carefully on its plans. I don’t believe that the city is being upfront with what are viable solutions are much like Newport Beach was guilty of some 20 years ago where general services and law enforcement were intentionally called off, abandoning maintenance and refusing to cite violators as a pretext to manufacture a public health and safety crisis to package and deliver to the council a bogus, illegal, unenforceable section of the municipal code that ended the career of a city manager.
Realtors and huge developers were behind it then. They tried to railroad the fisherman out of town which would have been followed by the public at large. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
The fact is that the public in Manhattan Beach is in more danger now than ever before because there is a false sense of security being promulgated by city staff and the media. The idea that banning fishing will keep the sharks away is like the idea that banning umbrellas will keep the rain away.
When city officials blatantly ignore laws such as is in this case and the media fails to report it as such, there is no end to how far the envelope will be pushed.
There is nothing new under the sun ladies and gentlemen. Government must be kept on a short leash or they will eventually put all of us on one. Just a thought and hoping all involved will do the right thing. Our best goes out to Mr. Robles who in my opinion, should file a lawsuit against the city for not warning him that he was entering shark infested waters and they are shark infested waters folks-ask the biologist at the end of the pier.
#1 by Anonymous on August 13, 2014 - 10:43 pm
Ken Jones
Where do you start? That’s the first question when discussing the recent situation at the Manhattan Beach Pier. The facts are fairly simple: Over the Fourth of July weekend a swimmer was bitten by a great white. The fish happened to be hooked to a line of an angler fishing from the Manhattan Beach Pier. As soon as the swimmer was rescued, and the shark released, the clamor commenced.
Rumors and wild charges filled the pages of newspapers and the Internet (especially those that claimed that the anglers were specifically targeting the area’s great whites, an illegal to keep species, and that they were chumming for the sharks). The situation was not improved when a YouTube film was posted that showed anglers apparently laughing when the swimmer was hooked.
In response to the controversy, Manhattan Beach authorities declared a two-month closure on fishing from the pier to study the issue.
PETA, as usual, issued an anti-fishing, knee-jerk rant calling on “all California cities to permanently ban fishing from their piers.” Later the group would call for a ban on piers in Santa Monica Bay and would fly a banner proclaiming “hookers off the piers” which provoked more jokes about hookers than anglers.
The organization wrote a letter to the city that stated that the attack “demonstrates that fishing in a populated area increases the risk that sharks will bite humans, WHOM THEY ARE OTHERWISE UNINTERESTED IN AS PREY, forcing the hooked sharks to lash out.” “Fishing also attracts sharks by the smell of bait or blood from fish that have already been caught.” According to their logic, “the best way to protect public safety and reduce the risk that another swimmer will be injured or killed by a panicked or confused shark is to ban fishing at the pier permanently.”
A once in a million occurrence, the typical response from a well-funded radical (some would say wacko) environmental organization, unfounded charges, incorrect rumors, charges and opinions offered to the media from people unaware of the facts, and a city council caught in the middle—a toxic mix.
In response to the uproar and publicity the Manhattan Beach City Council decided to ban fishing for two months from the pier while they studied the issue. After consultation with many people and organizations (including United Pier and Shore and Anglers of California, Save The Bay, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and local shark expert Chris Lowe, a professor at Long Beach State), the city proposed several restrictions on fishing from the pier. The stated intent was to be fair to all users but ultimately most of the blame and suggested restrictions would fall on anglers.
The proposed restrictions:
• No snag lines-2 hooks only
• Monofilament line only, no steel/metal/braided leader lines
• Limit on monofilament line weight to 40 lb. test line weight
• Limit fishing to the end of the Pier (surrounding the Roundhouse)
• No chumming
• No fish cleaning
• Maximum hook size 4/0, or 3” long by 2” wide.
With time came additional input and insight:
After investigation by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it responded that the angler had not violated state fishing laws and that he was targeting bat rays, not sharks. They stated, “this is a legal activity and consistent with numerous other fishing practices in waters where similar tackle is used to catch a variety of fish species.”
Heal the Bay offered up a plan to work with the city: “In response to the unfortunate white shark-angler-swimmer interaction that occurred recently in Manhattan Beach, Heal the Bay proposes to expand on its existing Angler Outreach Program to educate anglers and pier visitors about local shark ecology and methods to minimize conflict with sensitive wildlife and ocean users. The program would also collect data on fishing use on the pier. Additionally, we propose to establish a stakeholder group in partnership with local municipalities to collectively develop a comprehensive pier management strategy to prevent negative human-wildlife at piers along the Santa Monica Bay. The management recommendations would be informed in part through the data collected in the outreach program.”
The California Coastal Commission also weighed in: “We do not agree that an Emergency Coastal Development Permit to prohibit fishing from the pier for sixty days under Section 30611 is appropriate because, as part of the justification for an emergency it must be shown that there is imminent danger to life or property; the City has not demonstrated that public property or life is in imminent danger… The shark attack on the swimmer is an isolated incident that does not warrant the complete closure of a popular fishing pier for 60 days during the height of summer season. There are alternative measures that do not restrict coastal access that can be implemented, on an interim basis, to address this potential nuisance by reducing the risks to swimmers and surfers from fisherman.” Included in their recommendations was signage regarding local shark populations (including discouraging fishermen from fishing for sharks).
In addition it was brought to the City’s attention by Joe Imbriano (ardent fisherman who has fought these battles in the past) that the Conveyance of Tidelands to the City of Manhattan Beach by the state includes the following (Chapter 1427, Section 1, Part d): “The absolute right to fish in the waters of said harbor, with the right of convenient access to said waters over said lands for the said purpose is herby reserved to the people of the State of California.” In other words, the city has to allow fishing from the pier.
At the time of this article final decisions had not been made by the City Council but it looked like fishing would be allowed from the pier but that “some” form of restrictions would be imposed. What restrictions and their severity were unknown.
The main points that United Pier and Shore Anglers continued to make to the City Council regarding this situation were the following:
• Fishing has taken place for over a century from Southern California piers and the primary purpose for the construction of most piers was recreational angling.
• The state’s interest in recreational fishing from piers has been both long term and consistent. Piers serve as a low cost venue for family, youth, and tourist recreation. They also serve as a resource for the once-a-year casual angler and the neophyte angler just starting to learn the sport. The large number of young anglers on piers as well as tourist anglers is one reason why a fishing license is not required when fishing from a public pier. In addition, over 50 piers have received money for construction or reconstruction from the Wildlife Conservation Board, a division of the state Fish and Wildlife Department. As a stipulation of money from the WCB, the city, or whichever entity controls the pier, agrees to keep the pier open for public pier fishing.
• Sharks and rays have been caught from SoCal piers since the 1800s but this has never been considered a problem. This is due to the types of shark species common to Southern California piers, i.e., leopard sharks, thresher sharks, and occasionally a 7-gill shark. None of these are considered dangerous to anglers.
• It is true that great white sharks are increasing in numbers along the coast, several surfers have been bitten, and one individual was killed close to a pier (a lady who chose to swim with the sea lions next to the pier at Avila Beach). She was wearing a wetsuit at the time and it was speculated the great white mistook her for a sea lion and attacked her. A causal relationship between anglers and that shark attack was never suggested. Instead the decision to swim with sea lions, one of the favorite foods for great whites, was seen as the main contributing factor in the attack. In fact, the rise is the number on sea lions and other pinnipeds along California’s coast may be one of the main causes for the increase of great whites.
• Charges have been leveled at Manhattan Beach that the anglers were fishing for a great white shark. After reviewing the YouTube video and other reports (including that of the Department of Fish and Wildlife) it seems clear the charge is unwarranted. It is clear from the rod and reel seen in the YouTube video that the capture of a fish perhaps weighing several hundred pounds would be extremely difficult. The anglers stated they were fishing for bat rays that can be large and fun to catch and that appears most likely.
• The issue of chum for attracting sharks has also been voiced. The anglers said they did not chum for the shark other than the mackerel used for bait and again this seems most reasonable. In fact, a minimal amount of bait goes into the water from anglers at the Manhattan Beach Pier compared to many piers. There are far more numerous anglers at the Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Venice, and Santa Monica piers than at Manhattan Beach and there is much more bait and chum in their waters yet they have not seen appreciable sightings of great whites.
• People fishing for large sharks and rays do not know what they’ve hooked until the fish reaches the surface. According to Fish and Wildlife if an angler sees that the fish is a great white they should then cut the line. Fishermen have long debated this point. Should they cut the line or bring the fish up onto the pier by use of a net, then remove the hooks and return the fish to the water by use of the net. Here the anglers said they were afraid to cut the line since they saw surfers by the shark. It was an unwise decision but based upon past incidents, some reportedly where anglers were instructed to being great whites up onto the pier by pier authorities, it was more an error of judgment than an intentional breaking of the rules. It should be noted that the Fish and Wildlife did not cite these anglers.
• Is there a danger to surfers and swimmers from anglers fishing from piers? Nearly two thirds of all saltwater angling effort in California takes place on piers and the shore with the majority of this taking place on piers. Literally hundreds of thousand of hours are spent pier fishing in California. Yet this, to our knowledge, is the first and only time a swimmer has been bitten by a shark that was on the line of a fisherman. Thus a causal relationship between shark fishing on California piers and swimmers or surfers being bitten by a shark is simply not a reasonable conclusion.
• The number of great whites at Manhattan Beach is surprising and though the numbers are known, and the area is seen as a birthing area for the sharks, the reasons for this are not known. UPSAC believes, and most would agree, that it has no relationship to angling from what is a relatively small pier with a relatively small amount of anglers. If there were truly a fear from the great whites then the most prudent approach would be to ban all swimmers and surfers from the area.
• The larger issue and the one that is most relevant is how the city should serve all the competing interests—anglers, surfers and swimmers. For this UPSAC would suggest Manhattan Beach take a page from those cities that have large piers, and large numbers of surfers, yet have been able to resolve the conflict. The most successful are cities that impose a stay clear zone next to the pier, i.e., one hundred yards no swimming or surfing next to the pier. The prohibition should be painted on the side of the pier so that it is clear to surfers and swimmers, and lifeguards should be told to enforce the rules. Where such rules have been enforced there is generally peace between the competing groups. Lack of such rules and lack of enforcement is generally what leads to conflict. Surfers will object since the piers seem to provide water breaks that surfers prefer but surfers have miles of surf on each side of the pier open to surfing; anglers are restricted to the waters adjacent to a limited number of piers.
Almost entirely overlooked in the discussion on pier fishing are several long-term issues that will not be resolved by simple restrictions on a single city or pier. These are clashes that are occurring throughout California.
• The clash between the haves and the have-nots in our society. Manhattan Beach is an affluent community ranked by Money Magazine as the fourth most expensive beach town in America. It has the second highest mean income of any Los Angeles neighborhood (right above Beverly Hills) and home prices average $1.8 million. Pier fishermen on the other hand tend to be less affluent. Piers are free and provide low cost alternatives to owning a boat or fishing from a commercial Sportfishing boat. They attract whole families and for (some) people in wealthy seaside communities “these” people are an unwanted mix in their midst.
• The clash between races and ethnic groups. According to the 2000 census, Manhattan Beach was 88.99% White, 6.04% Asian, .61% Black, and minimal numbers of other races. 5.19% was Hispanic or Latino. Most would deny any racism is at play in the equations concerning anglers on the piers but anyone who has fished the piers on a regular basis knows the slurs that often are heard.
• The clash between surfers and anglers. Surfing often involves a “bullying” nature” that “claims” the waters as its own. It’s seen when locals harass other non-local surfers for water and it’s seen in the conflict over pier waters with anglers. Piers that have restrictions on swimming or surfing within 100 yards of a pier largely avoid the conflict. Given the glamorization of surfing in southern California, and the wealth and power of the Surfrider Foundation, it’s not hard to see the influence it has over city municipalities and why they are hesitant to enact 100-yard no swimming zones.
• The clash between those who have bought into the anti-fishing message of (some) environmental organizations and those who see the ocean as a living resource that can provide enjoyment for both passive and non-passive users. To some people a shark (or any fish) is a cute creature that is harmless if just left alone. They fail to recognize that all ocean creatures are in a constant battle against not only the ocean elements but against the other ocean creatures: eat or be eaten is the norm. Many people have an unrealistic view of the ocean and that comes into play whenever situations such as this arise.
These are clashes that will continue as society and its views change. Whether fishing is an acceptable recreation will continue to be attacked by some and it’s not clear (as seen in the battles over the Marine Life Protection Act) that angler groups have the funding, the will power, or support to win the battle of the minds of the average citizen.
#2 by Joe Imbriano on August 21, 2014 - 7:37 am
Look, fisherman should make no concessions as no laws were broken. The only party breaking laws right now is the city council, the city manager and the city attorney. Based on the swimmers injuries, it could have been a mako shark on the line which would have been a legal take. The city is still breaking the law. The city is still acting negligently by ALLOWING SWIMMING, surfing and paddle boarding in shark infested waters. For heavens sake-there are children at the beach in those waters.
The city is still acting negligently by not enforcing the L.A. county laws on aquatic users maintaining a safe distance from fisherman and the jagged rock solid pilings of the pier.
This is class warfare and it will not succeed unless you let them have their way. They are on shaky ground and all it will take is for one citation to be issued and challenged.
So now you can’t use a sabiki to jig bait, bring extra rods, fish on one side of the pier. What is this Alabama in the 1960s where the fisherman can’t use the same drinking fountain as the swimmers? That city manager and city attorney needs to be fired. They are breaking the law just to save face with the voters. It is an illegal dog and pony show. Call their bluff-go fishing.