Breaking News: Ballotpedia partners with White House and Congressional leadership to sponsor Affordable Stare Act (ASA)

California Proposition 132, Ban on Gill Nets (1990)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 132 was on the November 6, 1990 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.

Proposition 132 banned the use of gill nets and trammel nets, beginning January 1, 1994, in coastal waters of central and southern California. It also imposed additional fees for marine resource protection stemps through January 1, 1995 and allowed the revenue from the increased fees to go toward making a lump sum payment to fishermen who lost income due to the imposition of the ban of gill and trammel netting.

Election results

Proposition 132
Approveda Yes 3,959,238 55.76%

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Flag of California.png

Proposition 132 added Article XB to the California Constitution.

Ballot summary

  • Establishes Marine Protection Zone within three miles of coast of Southern California.
  • Commencing January 1, 1994, prohibits use of gill or trammel nets in zone.
  • Between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 1993 requires additional permit for use of gill nets or trammel nets in zone.
  • Requires purchase of $3 marine protection stamp for fishermen in zone.
  • Establishes permit fees and $3 sportfishing marine protection stamp fee to provide compensation to fishermen for loss of permits after January 1, 1994.
  • Directs Fish and Game Commission to establish four new ocean water ecological reserves for marine research.

Fiscal impact

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

  • Permit fees and marine protection stamp would provide approximately $5 million to Marine Resources Protection Account by 1995.
  • Compensation for fishermen who surrender gill and trammel nets between July 1, 1993 and January 1, 1994, could total up to $3.4 million, if necessary legislation enacted.
  • Enforcement of measure could cost up to $1.5 million annually.
  • Loss of $100,000 annually from reduced fishing license, permit, and tax revenues may result; losses offset in unknown amount by measure's increased fines.

External links