SeaWatch is underwritten by THE ORVIS COMPANY

SEAWATCH August 2001 Issue #88

Table of Contents:

• CCA Florida Preparing for Avalanche of "No Fishing Zone" Proposals
• Defending Conservation--the legal defense of our marine resources
• CCA Lawsuit Reopens Gulf Closed Areas to Surface Trolling
• Net Ban Enforcement -- some improvements, but problems persist
• New Pompano Regulations May Not Curtail Illegal Netting
• FWC Supports Restrictions on Bottom Longlines in Gulf Grouper Fisheries
  —Gulf Council Delays Action

CCA Florida Preparing for Avalanche of “No
Fishing Zone” Proposals

by Ted Forsgren

Florida’s saltwater anglers are again facing battles over access to coastal waters and fishing.

Even though access to the state’s inshore waters is already being impacted by manatee speed zones and sanctuaries, environmental groups and federal agencies are moving to create additional huge no-fishing zones.

“As we feared, the approval of the Dry Tortugas “No Fishing” Reserve has opened the floodgates for numerous new no-fishing zone proposals,” said Karl Wickstrom, CCA Florida Vice President and publisher of Florida Sportsman magazine. “Many of Florida’s premier saltwater fishing areas are being considered for complete prohibition on all types of recreational fishing.”

Many of these proposed closures are supported by environmental groups whose goal is to prohibit all fishing in at least 20 percent of all coastal areas.

The latest attempt took place before the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), which in June released a large “shopping list” of 42 Marine Protected Areas (“No Fishing Zones”) from North Carolina to Florida. Nineteen of the proposed areas were off of Florida’s east coast.

The “shopping list” included:

1. the Islamorada Hump,
2. Palm Beach reefs,
3. Oculina Banks off of Ft. Pierce,
4. Fowey Rocks - Dade County,
5. Hobe Sound bars - Martin County,
6. Carysfort Reef - Monroe County,
7. Lake Worth Inlet Jetties,
8. Blackmars and Tanzars Reef off of Jacksonville,
9. Red Snapper Sink off of St. Augustine and
10. 30 percent of coastal waters off of Broward County

Fortunately, during the hearing, Florida Council member Edward LeMaster persuaded the Council to remove from consideration all the suggested areas within state waters. He argued successfully that the federal government should not be telling Florida’s fish and wildlife agency how to manage fisheries in state waters, particularly when Florida has a much better fisheries management record.

LeMaster, and another Florida representative, Tony Iarocci, also convinced the Council to remove, and/or scale back, many of the remaining proposals. The remaining modified list of proposed Marine Protected Areas will again be considered by the SAFMC in September.

CCA Florida urged the SAFMC to drop the “No Fishing Zone” concept because there are better fishery management measures available to protect grouper, snapper and other reef fish, which do not go to the extreme of prohibiting all fishing, all the time. The biggest problem, however, has been getting the federal fishery councils to adopt the restrictive measures.

CCA Florida’s reasons for opposing the SAFMC’s “No Fishing Zones” (“NFZs”) include the following:

• Far greater benefits are obtained by prohibiting harvest and sale during the spawning season. Such measures protect spawning aggregations throughout the entire range of the fishery, instead of only the “No Fishing Zone” subsets of the range.

• “NFZs” will create a large and unnecessary confrontation between fishery managers and saltwater recreational anglers—the very individuals and groups which have been the primary supporters of fisheries conservation initiatives in the past. The confrontation will delay and divert attention from enacting proven and effective management measures such as spawning season closures.

• “NFZs” place an unfair and disproportionate burden on fishers in the areas chosen. Harvest restrictions should instead be enacted and distributed fairly throughout the range of the fishery.

• “NFZs” unfairly and inappropriately prohibit all forms of recreational fishing (even catch and release) on fishery stocks that are clearly healthy and not overfished—such as sailfish, redfish, dolphin and Spanish mackerel.

• “NFZs” place unrealistic and unfunded enforcement burdens on state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, which are already understaffed. Spawning season closures are much simpler to enforce by simply checking the catch of fishermen when they return to land.

• Without the necessary and proven management measures to control total commercial and recreational fishery take throughout the range of the fishery, the “NFZs” will merely shift fishing effort to non-closed areas. CCA is unaware of any instance where marine “No Fishing” Reserves have been successfully used as a primary management measure to restore an overfished fishery.

CCA Florida is also wary of the “bait and switch” tactics which were used to create huge no-fishing zones in the Gulf. In 1999, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) moved to increase protection for spawning aggregations of gag grouper in several proposed “Marine Protected Areas” covering more than 200 square miles.

For 18 months, the Gulf Council had promoted the proposed action as prohibiting fishing for reef fish only in those areas. CCA Florida supported the measures in part because surface trolling for billfish, dolphin and other migratory species would still be allowed. However, at the final vote, the Gulf Council voted to prohibit all fishing.

The two areas were only reopened to surface trolling after settlement of a lawsuit filed by CCA. [See complete story this issue of Seawatch: CCA Lawsuit Reopen Gulf Closed Areas to Surface Trolling.]

Last month, as part of a federally mandated recovery plan to stop overfishing of red grouper, the Gulf Council again considered, but did not act upon, proposals that would create even more no-fishing zones in areas three times larger than the previously established Gulf zones—including such areas as The Middle Grounds, Christmas Ridge and The Elbow.

CCA supported the Gulf Council’s management option that would prohibit the use of commercial bottom longlines out to a depth of 50 fathoms. [See article this issue of Seawatch: FWC Supports Restrictions on Bottom Longlines in Gulf Grouper Fisheries--Gulf Council Delays Action.] That was also the option strongly supported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. If approved, the red and gag grouper fisheries would become hook and line only fisheries. [Fish traps are scheduled to be phased out in 2007.] Commercial fisheries currently take 87 percent of the total red grouper landings in the Gulf.

As conservationists and concerned anglers, we need to be willing to confront the ”No Fishing Zone” issue with clearly identified alternatives and proof that there are much better management measures available. Prime examples are Florida’s management regulations which brought redfish and Spanish mackerel populations from a severely overfished and depleted status to levels of phenomenal abundance. In those highly-successful recovery and management plans, not one square mile of ocean was closed to fishing.

[return to Table of Contents]

Today, much of the fisheries regulatory process flows through our court system. “Everything that gets achieved administratively gets litigated,” said Bob Hayes, CCA’s general counsel. “Good or bad, management rules affect people, and lawsuits ensue.”

Although much maligned, our U.S. court system serves as a vital sounding board for regulating the utilization, conservation and restoration of marine resources. If the recreational anglers’ voice is going to influence this system, we must have a megaphone. The CCA Legal Defense Fund provides that amplifier.

“You can never have enough money to use in the courts,” said Hayes. “The protection of the interest of our resources and the interest of recreational anglers includes hiring a team of highly qualified, experienced litigators. Due in large part of our legal defense fund, CCA is getting things done.”

There are currently more than 100 lawsuits pending against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and this trend will likely accelerate. Currently, virtually any substantive management measure is going to be challenged.

“If you look at most of these court cases,” said Hayes, “you file a suit, negotiate some form of a settlement, and try to get things done for the resource.” But in a lawsuit, as opposed to rule making, the terms of the settlement are only available to the parties involved in the suit. Thus, CCA must be involved or run the risk of being excluded from the administrative process.

“If a judge only hears one side of the story (particularly that of the opposition), sound regulations can be turned inside out...” said Hayes.

CCA has utilized its legal defense fund in recent years to push for better management of Gulf and Atlantic highly migratory species, to maintain by-catch reduction device requirements for Gulf shrimp trawls, and to fight arbitrary, federal no-fishing zones. All these efforts involved significant administrative and court challenges, and none would be possible without a strong legal backbone.

But more challenges loom. With the advent of no-fishing zones, recreational anglers no longer have to simply worry about the recovery of troubled fisheries, we now have to wonder if we will be allowed to participate in the fisheries we have worked so hard to conserve and restore. For instance, in the summer of 2000, the Secretary of Commerce closed two areas off the Florida coast to almost all forms of fishing.

“The original intention of NMFS’ proposal was to protect gag grouper through a closure to bottom fishing in a spawning aggregation area,” said Hayes. “That was justified. But to close the entire water column is misguided.”

CCA successfully filed suit against NMFS in federal district court opposing the total closure. [See next article below this issue of Seawatch: CCA Lawsuit Reopens Gulf Closed Areas to Surface Trolling.] Without a well-funded legal defense fund, this would not have been possible.

From the high-profile management problems of highly-migratory species to the grinding lawsuits to control Gulf by-catch problems, CCA has maintained its presence and prowess in the court system. In support of this effort, CCA asks for an annual contribution to fund the stream of legal challenges that face our resources and recreational anglers’ role in them. With your help, we can continue the legal defense of our marine resources.

[return to Table of Contents]

CCA Lawsuit Reopens Gulf Closed Areas to
Surface Trolling
The Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) reached a favorable settlement in its suit against National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rules establishing two no-fishing zones off the Florida coast in the Gulf of Mexico. The settlement will allow recreational anglers to troll previously restricted areas for pelagic species such as billfish and tunas, while still prohibiting bottom fishing for stressed gag grouper stocks.

CCA, led by CCA Florida, had supported the bottom fishing closure when it was being considered by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council because of its importance as the site of gag grouper spawning aggregates. The rule had been promoted strictly as a bottom fishing closure until an amendment was added at the last moment creating a total ban on all fishing including surface trolling.

Federal law allows for ocean-area closures where it can be shown necessary to conserve troubled fish stocks. But the NMFS’ regulation unjustly included restrictions on fishing for other species that frequent upper levels of the ocean’s water column.

“This settlement achieves the conservation benefit needed to protect gag grouper stocks while arbitrarily excluding recreational anglers from trolling for unrelated species,” said Fred Miller, chairman of CCA’s government relations committee.

The CCA/NMFS settlement also requires a scientific research project to determine the impact of conventional surface trolling gear on bottom-dwelling grouper. The NMFS closure will extend until 2003, when it will be reevaluated by the Gulf Council.

“The settlement represents an acknowledgment by NMFS that blanket no-fishing zones are not required to provide effective conservation of fishery resources,” said Jay Johnson, CCA legal counsel. “And it requires the agency to produce credible scientific evidence before taking action to extend current area closures beyond 2003.”

[Return to CCA Florida home page]

[Return to list of SeaWatch publications]

Thank You

We are deeply appreciative of Mercury Marine for their continued support of CCA Florida
conservation initiatives.  Mercury donates two motors for every CCA Florida banquet. 

CCA Florida would also like to recognize:

FLORIDA SPORTSMAN MAGAZINE and the WICKSTROM FAMILY for their generous support for our membership growth program and their work for marine conservation in Florida.

STELLA MARINE of Palm Beach Gardens and Stuart for a major Gold Level donation in support of "our waters and fisheries and to do our part to make sure our children have the opportunity to enjoy those great natural resources."

CALUSA CAST NETS and CRACKER CAST NETS for their consistent and longtime support of marine conservation through donated and discounted cast nets provided for every CCA Florida fundraising banquet.

THE ORVIS COMPANY who continues to make a significant annual donation of merchandise to CCA Florida in addition to underwriting a majority of the expenses related to publishing SEAWATCH.

[Return to Table of Contents this page.]