July
1997 Issue
#68
July
1997 Issue
#68
SeaWatch is underwritten by THE ORVIS COMPANY
[Return to list of SeaWatch publications]
Constitutional Revision Commission Begins Meetings
by Ted Forsgren
The Commission members can propose to amend or appeal any part of the state constitution including the Save Our Sealife amendment.
The Florida Constitution requires the establishment of a Constitutional Revision Commission (CRC) every 20 years for the purpose of reviewing the state constitution. The CRC is composed of 37 people appointed by the Governor, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House and Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court.
The CRC has the power to place constitutional amendments on the 1998 general election ballots, which can add to, modify, or repeal any part of the Florida Constitution. That could include repealing the Save Our Sealife (net ban) amendment.
Some legal scholars and constitutional lawyers have stated that the regulation of marine net fishing should be in Florida statutes and not in the Florida Constitution. One speaker at the CRC’s opening day ceremonies specifically mentioned the net ban amendment as one of the reasons why the CRC should change the citizen petition initiative process to make it harder for citizens to amend the constitution.
In reality, of the more than 70 amendments adopted since 1968, only 10 have been citizen-initiatives. The rest were proposed by the Florida Legislature.
And anyone who took part in the original Save Our Sealife initiative knows the truth. It was a long, and arduous process to achieve lasting protection for our marine resources, and it came in the nick of time after decades of failed marine resource management.
Although many believe that the CRC would not dare attempt to repeal the net ban amendment because it was so overwhelmingly approved by the voters, we cannot rest on that assumption. The commercial netting industry has tried every form of lawsuit possible to undermine the amendment. They are not going to let this opportunity pass, and can be expected to mount a major effort to get the CRC to repeal the net ban amendment.
At press time, the CRC had decided to feature the net ban amendment at its July 22 meeting in Panama City. While planning to attend and make a presentation in support of the net ban, CCA Florida has expressed concerns about the location. Of the 11 areas selected for the statewide public hearings, voters in ten of those areas voted overwhelmingly to approve the amendment. The only one of those 11 areas where they did not was Panama City. CCA believes that the Panama City meeting should not be the only hearing to specifically feature the net ban issue.
If the CRC does place an amendment on the 1998 ballot to repeal the net ban, conservationists would again have to mount an expensive, statewide advertising campaign to kill the proposal. It would also place at risk all the benefits the net ban has brought to Florida’s resources. The results in fisheries recovery and increased fish abundance have been outstanding.
Action You Can Take
Plan to attend one of the CRC’s statewide public hearings. (Please see the meeting schedule at right.) Tell the members of the committee not to tamper with the Save Our Sealife amendment.
You can also write to the Constitutional Revision Committee in care of:
Dexter Douglass, Chairman B-11 Historic Old Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300 phone (850) 413-7740 fax (850) 413-7728
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE
[Return to the Table of Contents]
August 20, 1997 Miami, Ashe Auditorium, 400 S.E. 2nd Ave., 3rd Floor of Hyatt Regency
August 21, 1997 Fort Lauderdale, Broward Center for the Performing Arts, 585 Amaturo Theater, 201 Southwest Fifth Ave.
August 22, 1997 West Palm Beach, Duncan Theater, 4200 Congress Ave., Palm Beach Community College, Central Campus
September 4, 1997 Orlando, Expo Center, 500 West Livingston Street
September 5, 1997 Daytona Beach, Daytona Beach Community College, Building 16, 1200 International Speedway Boulevard
September 11, 1997 Tampa, Tampa Convention Center, 333 South Franklin Street
September 12, 1997 Ft. Myers, Edison Community College, Corbin Auditorium
Amberjack Regs for South Atlantic
[Return to the Table of Contents]
In June, CCA Florida provided the following comments and recommendations to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council concerning amberjack harvest regulations in the Snapper/Grouper Proposed Plan Amendment Nine.
Comments
Until the mid-1980s, the amberjack fishery in both the Gulf and South Atlantic regions was almost entirely a recreational fishery. In the early 80s and before, commercial landings were less than 100,000 pounds per year. Starting about 1985, the commercial fishery began to rapidly and dramatically increase. The commercial fishing effort directed at amberjack was so intense that commercial fishers requested and obtained a special regulation related to the 36 inch minimum size which would allow coring of fish. Coring meant the removal of head and tails at sea, to retain only the core so that more fish (more pounds) could be carried per boat per trip. The amberjack cores were simply stacked like cordwood in fish boxes.
Recreational landings also began to increase in the mid-1980s and then began to decline dramatically. "Reported" commercial landings now exceed "estimated" recreational landings on both the Gulf and South Atlantic coasts.
What was once a nonexistent commercial fishery has now expanded to exceed and, in some areas supplant, the recreational fishery.
$ The federal fisheries stock assessment which estimates the spawning stock biomass at an extremely healthy 80% SPR is completely and totally absurd. There are obviously some serious errors in data and in the biological variables selected for the amberjack population model because that number has absolutely no relationship to reality. The overwhelming majority of Florida charter boat captains and recreational anglers consider amberjack on both the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts to be severely overfished with great declines in overall abundance and average size of fish.
$ The existing regulations, a recreational three-fish bag limit and 28 inch minimum size and a commercial 36 inch minimum size and one-month closure, has simply reduced recreational harvest, enhanced the commercial takeover of the fishery, and has not provided any protection for amberjack stocks which continued to decline after the regulations were enacted.
$ During the months of March, April and May, amberjack are aggregated for spawning and are much more vulnerable to high volume commercial take.
$ The commercial closure of only one or two months is not enough to prevent shift of commercial fishing effort to the open months, which would simply undermine the benefits of the closure.
$ Prohibition of all sale of amberjack during the closed months is absolutely essential to enforcing the closure. Otherwise it will be impossible to prevent continued commercial and "recreational" sales of amberjack.
$ The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council believe that amberjack are severely overfished and have taken steps to quickly enact new restrictions to protect and restore amberjack. These new laws would reduce the recreational bag limit from three to one fish (maintaining 28 inch minimum size) and close the months of March, April and May to all commercial harvest and sale (maintaining 36 inch minimum).
Recommendations
CCA Florida does strongly support reducing the recreational bag limit from three fish to one fish (while maintaining the 28 inch minimum size) provided that substantial restrictions are imposed on commercial take as follows:
$ No commercial harvest and all sale prohibited during March, April and May (all three months);
$ Establish a commercial daily trip limit (somewhere from 500 - 1,000 pounds) to prevent commercial effort shifting to open months which would undermine the conservation benefits provided by the closed season; and
$ Maintain the 36 inch minimum size for commercial take.
The one fish recreational bag limit would continue during March, April and May; however, there would be no sale allowed by any harvester.
Prepared by: Ted Forsgren, Executive Director, CCA Florida
TRAP SCAM: Crab Traps Altered to Catch Reef Fish in the Gulf
[Return to the Table of Contents]
Large numbers of commercial "crab traps" in the Gulf of Mexico have been altered to circumvent the prohibitions on fish traps in state and federal waters in order to catch reef fish under regulations designed for blue crab traps. By simply changing the shape of a crab trap’s opening (throat) from horizontal to vertical, it becomes a very effective fish trap while still being permitted and regulated as a blue crab trap.
Using such altered traps has many advantages, not the least of which is being able to use "legal" crab traps in offshore waters that are closed to fish traps. Trappers are also able to avoid the requirement that legal fish traps be pulled from the water at the end of a day of fishing.
A staff report presented to the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) in June stated, "With the federal Gulf fish trap moratorium in the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) there has been a proliferation of blue crab traps in offshore areas where blue crabs do not appear in abundance."
The report also pointed out that "...federal regulations do allow the harvest of finfish as bycatch in traps used to target crustaceans, e.g. blue crab, stone crab, shrimp, and lobster. This loophole enables finfish to be targeted with traps spuriously deployed to harvest crustaceans."
The report was, in-part, based upon a trap inspection trip in which state officials pulled up 20 blue crab traps from depths of 50 to 60 feet in the Gulf of Mexico between St. Marks and Steinhatchee. The traps for the most part were found to be "legal" blue crab traps but with the throats turned to accommodate fish. According to observers on board, the traps contained live and dead grouper, Key West grunts, and black sea bass.
The vertical openings were approximately eight inches in height by two inches in width. Large enough to invite a fairly large fish. On a normal crab trap the throat is a horizontal slot usually about five inches long and an inch or two wide.
In June, the MFC passed a rule on first reading that would prohibit the use of blue crab traps in federal waters adjacent to Florida - a management option the state enjoys because there are no federal regulations covering blue crab harvest. The proposed rule also specifies a horizontal orientation for the throat configuration in blue crab traps.
A final public hearing will be held in September.
BRDs for Shrimpers in the Gulf (Seawatch, July 1997)
[Return to the Table of Contents]
Last month CCA Florida lent its strong support for approval of Amendment 9 to the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Management Plan. Following are excerpts from comments sent to Mr. Rolland A. Schmitten, director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The plan would require the use of certified by-catch reduction devices (BRDs) on shrimp trawls working in some areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
Every year in the Gulf, billions of croaker, millions of red snapper, millions of mackerel and other finfish are caught, killed and dumped over the side by Gulf shrimp trawlers. This damage and waste of publicly-owned marine resources is monumental and unnecessary. Millions in public tax dollars have been spent to research and develop the BRDs. These devices have been tested, retested and proven to dramatically reduce the finfish by-kill in shrimp trawls without substantial loss in shrimp take. However, just like the battle over the use of turtle excluder devices, the shrimping industry strongly opposes the use of BRDs.
For more than 12 years, the commercial shrimping industry bitterly opposed the use of TEDs. While the industry blocked the conservation measures, tens of thousands of sea turtles drowned in trawl nets. At one time, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that up to 55,000 sea turtles may have been killed annually in shrimp trawls.
The shrimping industry, which opposes the use of BRDs, claims that these conservation devices would cause great economic harm to their industry. The commercial fishing industry has often forecast economic disaster as a means to oppose fisheries conservation laws.
Commercial shrimpers and other opponents of TEDs claimed that the turtle-saving devices would result in excessive losses of shrimp and would result in the demise of the American shrimping industry. However, two full seasons after the required use of TEDs, the shrimp catch in the Gulf of Mexico, measured in terms of pounds caught per days fished, was actually higher than the previous three years when TEDs were not required.
In 1994, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved (72% voted yes) a constitutional amendment to limit marine net fishing in Florida waters. The huge waste and damage from large shrimp trawlers in inshore waters was a major issue. Again, the shrimping industry’s claims of widespread economic damage were unfounded. In the year following the implementation of the constitutional netting restrictions, total statewide shrimp landings increased by 20% over the previous year.
Our only objection to Amendment 9 is that it does not cover all the federal waters off the west coast of Florida, only a part of the Florida Panhandle. We urge you to approve Amendment 9 and then, without further delay, take additional steps to extend this important marine resource protection measure to all the federal waters off Florida’s west coast.