SEAWATCH May 2003 Issue #95

Table of Contents:

• CCA Florida Special Report Exposes Failures and Bias in Federal Fishery Management Programs-- by Rick Farren
  
• Manatee Biological Review Back on the Table by Ted Forsgren
  

CCA Florida Special Report Exposes Failures and Bias in Federal Fishery Management Programs

by Rick Farren, Communications Director of CCA Florida

CCA Florida has released a special report documenting a history of bias against recreational fisheries in federal management programs. Failures and Exploitation Bias in Federal Fishery Management Programs, Recommendations for Systemic Changes, was presented earlier this year to the National Sportfishing Leadership Conference in St. Petersburg, Florida.

“The conference gave us an excellent opportunity to provide our findings and recommendations on federal fisheries management to every major saltwater recreational fishing organization in the United States, as well as to representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),” said Michael Kennedy, CCA Florida Chairman.

Federal fisheries are managed by 11 fishery management councils. Waters off Florida are managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Appointments to the councils are overseen by NMFS and regulations passed by the councils must be approved by NMFS.

The special report documents a history of bias against recreational saltwater fishing within the federal management system, stating: “One of the predominant roles of the National Marine Fisheries Service through the 90s was to develop commercial fisheries. As a result, NMFS and the federal fishery management councils have been systematically reducing recreational fishery landings at a much greater and faster rate than commercial fishery landings. In many cases, recreational landings were dramatically reduced through regulation while commercial industry landings remained the same or even increased, sometimes substantially.”

“We’ve documented a process that is actually transforming predominately recreational fisheries into commercial fisheries,” said CCA Florida Executive Director Ted Forsgren.

One analysis within the report found that in the case of Gulf of Mexico gag grouper, the cumulative impact of 11 years of federal regulations has reduced annual recreational landings by an average of 42 percent, while commercial landings actually increased over the same time period (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 - AVERAGE ANNUAL GULF GAG GROUPER LANDINGS
BEFORE AND AFTER FEDERAL REGULATION

In the case of amberjack, (figure 2) the report points out that federal regulations have “allowed a once nonexistent commercial fishery to continue expanding, and in some areas completely supplant the recreational fishery. In addition, the regulations did not provide critically needed protection from high-volume commercial take during the spawning aggregation period.”

FIGURE 2 - FLORIDA EAST COAST AMBERJACK AVERAGE ANNUAL LANDINGS
BEFORE AND AFTER FEDERAL REGULATION

“The federal regulations simply reduced recreational take and enhanced the commercial takeover of the amberjack fishery,” said Forsgren. “The once abundant South Atlantic stocks have still not recovered from the impact of the commercial fishery directed at spawning aggregations.”

Similar results from federal management of both sharks and yellowfin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic are also detailed in the special report.

CCA Florida has also documented how manipulation of council appointment guidelines by the National Marine Fisheries Service has allowed commercial interests to dominate the federal fishery management councils which has led to the current unbalanced system. Exacerbating the problem is the practice of allowing paid commercial lobbyists to hold council seats.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, CCA Florida acquired financial disclosure statements of council members. An analysis showed that in 2002, 54 percent of council members had direct conflicts of interest in one or more fisheries regulated by the council. Of those, 67 percent had an interest in commercial fishing.

The one exception to this pattern occurred in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Council in 2001 and 2002, where for the first time in its 30-year history, the Council had more “recreational” representatives than “commercial” representatives. “However,” stated the report, “it did not occur because NMFS modified appointment practices, it occurred because the governor’s nominations from several Gulf states did not allow NMFS an opportunity to appoint commercial representatives.”

“We’ve also made a number of recommendations for addressing the bias within the system,” said Forsgren, “including the use of amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that would reduce financial conflicts of interest on the councils, change council appointment policies within the Department of Commerce, and allow states to have greater authority in developing federal management plans for fisheries that occur predominantly in waters off of that state.”

A complete copy of the report is available at: FAILURES AND EXPLOITATION BIAS IN FEDERAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGES, or by calling the CCA Florida advocacy office in Tallahassee at (850) 224-3474.

[return to Table of Contents]

On April 18, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), during a special meeting in Tallahassee, voted to consider approval of the “biological status review,” of the manatee when the commissioners meet in regular session on May 28-30, 2003.

An earlier ruling by the commissioners had postponed consideration of the review until November while a request was made to federal authorities to defer to the State of Florida (FWC) on manatee management decisions and protection measures.

The decision to move consideration up to the May meeting came on the heels of a failed effort in March by the FWC to get all stakeholders to “cease fire” on the manatee lawsuits and other controversial issues and try to work out solutions in a conflict resolution process. Although CCA Florida agreed to participate in the resolution process, the effort was unsuccessful because the manatee group and their co-plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit were unwilling to delay action on a major new wave of federal speed zones.

In fact, on March 18, a stipulation agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Save the Manatee Club was approved by a federal judge despite formal written objections filed by the FWC and others. The stipulation mandated the USFWS to advertise four major areas for additional federal speed zones no later than March 31. Final federal speed zone rules must be adopted by July 31.

In light of that ruling, CCA felt it would be inappropriate for the FWC to deliberately delay final action on the evaluation until after the federal government has acted on the new wave of major speed zones. These zones will significantly damage access for recreational fishing in major areas of the state.

We can also now expect a major confrontation as the federal government and the Manatee Club act to override state management efforts and impose more extreme regulations in areas that are already heavily regulated and restricted under state laws. The central focus in this confrontation, and in the entire manatee controversy, is the biological status of manatees and the need for such extreme zones to protect manatees. As such, we felt it is extremely important that the FWC take final action to establish the true biological status of manatees before the impending confrontations.

CCA Florida filed the original petition to reevaluate the manatee’s biological status in August of 2001 and the Commission unanimously accepted the petition for processing in November 2001. Upon completion, the biological review led FWC staff to recommend that the species status be changed to “threatened” under state standards, even though the data would actually suggest it be listed as a “species of special concern.”

It’s also important to point out that this was the first review of the biological status of the manatee in the 31 years the species has been classified as endangered. In addition, despite concerns by the manatee group and other animal rights groups, the biological review is merely the biological status of the manatee in the year 2003, not forever.

The FWC reviews the status of redfish every three years, and of snook every two years. There is no reason that manatees can’t also be looked at every few years. A change in state status will also have no adverse effect on state efforts to protect the manatee, nor will it affect the animal’s status as a federally endangered species.

Although the initial postponement cited problems regarding the computer model, those problems involved only simulations not scientific facts. Computer models can be constructed and adjusted to simulate virtually anything. We feel that the FWC staff simply needs to layout in detail the simulations that were developed and Commissioners can decide whether or not those simulations reflect possible future realities. In addition, the FWC Imperiled Species rule does not require the development of a computer model.

The FWC has also determined that the State of Florida alone has established more than one quarter of a million acres of manatee protection zones. Those 298,816 acres represent 24 percent of Florida’s coastal and inland waters. That figure doesn’t even include an unknown number of acres with identical or similar manatee zones established by other entities such as individual counties, the USFWS, or zones found within the state’s many national wildlife refuges and national parks.

Furthermore, many Florida counties already have a substantial percentage of their inshore waters in regulated manatee protection zones including, Citrus (100 percent), Lake (97 percent), Collier (67 percent), Indian River (65 percent), Martin (66 percent), Palm Beach (62 percent), Sarasota (48 percent), St. Lucie (48 percent), and Volusia (46 percent).

Establishing the correct biological status of the species is essential to determining whether existing regulations and protection zones are sufficient to protect the expanding manatee populations. Otherwise, saltwater anglers will continue to face a never ending procession of additional zones and regulations based on lawsuits and emotion instead of science.

[Return to Table of Contents] [Return to CCA Florida home page] [Return to list of SeaWatch publications]

We are deeply appreciative of Mercury Marine for their continued support of CCA Florida
conservation initiatives. Mercury provides motors at a discounted cost for every CCA Florida banquet. The motors are used to raise significant and vital funds for the protection of our marine resources.

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.

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.

[Click here to see our 2003 Banquet Schedule.]