Seven thousand days at sea. Twenty-nine years fishing for a living.

As Capt. Robert Johnson sat in a Charleston hotel conference room in September, the charter boat operator from St. Augustine, Fla., seemed to see it all slipping away.

For hour after hour, Johnson listened intently as members of the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council struggled with an unprecedented decision: picking the best way to severely limit bottom fishing off the Southeast coast, a move government scientists say is needed to rebuild red snapper stocks.

Alternatives include closing off vast areas of ocean to any hook-and-line fishing for grouper and snapper — just the kind of fish Johnson says his clients want to take home.

As SAFMC board members discussed, debated, maneuvered and proposed, they dove deeply into murky scientific and policy questions.

Maximum sustainable yields. Bycatch mortality. Age structure truncation. Sector allocation. Fishery-independent monitoring. Over two days, they tangled with the red snapper issue. No matter how they sliced it, the future looked bad for folks like Johnson.

When the time finally arrived for an informal Q&A session with board members and fisheries scientists, Johnson let it rip.

“You’re going to put me out of business,” Johnson declared, his voice simmering with anger. “That is not speculation like the biomass, or the recruitment classes.

“… There’s one thing that’s sure: You are going to put a lot of people out of business. People are going to lose their homes, they’re going to lose their businesses.

“What do I do at 49 years of age, with two boats and a terrible economy? I mean, we all watch the news — there’s not going to be any government bailout coming our way.

“What are we all going to do?”

There was no answer.

How did we get here?

The revised Magnuson-Stevens Act lies at the heart of the ongoing bottom fishing battle. The nation’s top fisheries law requires regional managers to act, and act quickly, to end overfishing once government scientists declare that a particular species is in trouble.

“You can’t come in and say we’re going to let overfishing continue because ending it would have economic impacts,” Duane Harris, chairman of the SAFMC, explained during the Q&A session. “Prior to reauthorization of Magnuson, we could phase out overfishing and take time to do that. I guess Congress felt like we were taking unacceptably too much time and were never getting the job done, and they took that flexibility away from us.”

If they don’t act on their scientists’ recommendations, managers now risk being sued by environmental groups closely monitoring the fishery.

This tougher federal mandate already has spawned a series of tighter regulations for Southeast anglers, most focusing on popular and commercially important bottom fish such as black seabass, gag grouper and vermilion snapper.

But when the SAFMC turned its attention to red snapper a few years ago, the situation quickly reached critical mass.

Scientists with the SAFMC’s Scientific and Statistical Committee found that red snapper populations are being overfished at eight times the sustainable level, and that decades of fishing pressure have left a population skewed heavily toward younger fish. The situation is so bad, they say, that simply outlawing red snapper catches won’t solve the problem. They’ve got to deal with the bycatch issue.

Scientists say a large portion of red snapper released by anglers die anyway, victims of “barotrauma” suffered while being hauled up from deep water. Mathematical models indicate that to effectively rebuild the stocks and meet the guidelines set forth by Magnuson-Stevens, even accidental catches of red snapper must be curtailed. And the only way to do that, some argue, is to ban virtually all forms of bottom fishing throughout vast areas of ocean until red snapper populations rebound.

Such a ban would cut across fishery sectors, from commercial operations that supply seafood stores and restaurants to charter boats that take out paying customers and even recreational anglers.

And because red snapper live so long, the rebuilding process could take years, or even decades.

What’s on the table?

During their September meeting in Charleston, SAFMC members considered a number of existing options for a bottom-fishing ban. They also sketched out an entirely new option that could preserve a limited and highly regulated snapper-grouper fishery. The council did not pick a preferred alternative, but instead left a number of options in place so anglers and environmental groups could weigh in during public hearings this fall. The council could endorse an option when it meets again Dec. 7-11 in Atlantic Beach, N.C.

If approved, the measure, known as Amendment 17A to the Snapper-Grouper Management Plan, would go to the National Marine Fisheries Services for review, and then on to the Secretary of Commerce for final approval sometime next year.

Two of the alternatives still on the table confine the bottom-fishing ban to waters off Georgia and northern Florida. Two others bring these closed areas much closer to Charleston. Some areas follow depth contour lines from about 98 feet to 240 feet, while others follow grid squares already in place to regulate the commercial fishery. All of those options include a total ban on red snapper catches, so the question at hand is where anglers would still be able to target other snapper-grouper species.

Council members approved a number of revisions to these alternatives in September. Most notably, they backed closing a loophole that would have allowed spearfishermen to harvest snapper-grouper species other than red snapper in all closed areas. Since spearfishermen actually pick out the fish they intend to catch, they presumably could avoid killing red snapper — no bycatch problem.

But SAFMC officials pointed to a number of problems with this scenario.

“The law enforcement issue is one,” Gregg Waugh, SAFMC deputy executive director, explained. “The concern about effort shift would be the other. If you have this large reserve area for spearfishing, it would induce a lot of fishermen to become spearfishmen or add spearfishermen to their vessels. And they would target the larger, older fish — not red snapper, but the others — and that would have an additional negative, biological impact. Other fisheries would close sooner.”

“And one other I’ve heard is fairness,” council member George Geiger added. “If you’re going to have a closed area, it should be a closed area.”

A new plan or false hope?

Understandably, the prospect of widespread bottom fishing closures has riled commercial and recreational anglers throughout the Southeast. Petitions have been circulating, and most familiar with the issue expect the matter to end up in court, one way or the other.

In the midst of this tempest, some council members pushed hard in September to come up with another option, some new plan that could put red snapper on the path to recovery while preserving some shred of a fishery — for those commercial operators or recreational anglers willing to jump through the hoops.

Angler groups had submitted ideas to the SAFMC over the summer, and council members considered but rejected many of them in September. But after heated debate, they managed to cobble together pieces of plans pushed by a group of Georgia anglers and seemingly backed primarily by Chairman Harris and council member Susan Shipman, both from Georgia.

Details of the new plan remain sketchy, and SAFMC staffers are expected to iron out the details over the coming weeks. As discussed at the council meeting, the new alternative would forbid most catches of red snapper and close large areas off the Southeast Coast to all bottom fishing. However, there would be designated fishing zones within these closed areas, allowing a very limited number of anglers off northern Florida, Georgia and southern South Carolina to pursue snapper-grouper species.

Some anglers might even be able to target red snapper, if they were picked to participate in a research effort to gauge how well the stock was recovering and whether bycatch is as big a concern as research indicates.

“The commercial sector has made assertions to us that they can stay off red snapper, and this will be a good opportunity to see if they can,” Shipman said.

The selection of commercial, for-hire and recreational fishermen who could bottom-fish in these areas could be done by lottery, and those chosen would have to follow stringent regulations unheard of in most Southeastern fleets. Anglers might have to pay for and install satellite tracking systems and video cameras to verify their catches and bycatches. They might be required to pay for government observers to ride along during some bottom-fishing trips. They might also keep electronic logbooks and report real-time catches through cellular phone text messages.

Whatever options make it into the final proposal, the whole system would have to give fisheries managers the power to track how many red snapper were accidentally caught. When discards reached a certain number, they’d shut down the fishery.

And despite potential provisions for video monitoring, this bycatch issue left some council members leery of the new plan.

“I can’t wrap my arms around this self-reported bycatch system,” said councilman Benjamin “Mac” Currin of Raleigh, N.C. “These guys know we’re going to shut them down” once the bycatch level is reached, and video cameras might not solve the problem, he said. Anglers could easily hide potential bycatches by cutting the line once they see that a red snapper is hooked up, he said.

“The camera’s never going to see that,” Currin said, adding that in is eyes, “observer coverage is a necessity.”

Though Currin cast the sole vote against the new “fishing zone” option, other members also expressed concerns about whether anglers could be counted on to accurately report red snapper bycatches.

Monitoring actual landings is one thing, councilman Roy Crabtree said, but “with discards, it’s pretty much the honor system. And there’s a powerful incentive to under-report. That is a real problem with this.”

Crabtree, who also serves as regional fisheries director for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pointed out that even if video monitoring is implemented, it’s possible the fleet could overshoot its allowable red snapper bycatch before fisheries managers saw it coming.

“There’s a time lag on the order of weeks, between video and actually figuring out what was caught,” Crabtree said. “You’ve got to get the videos to them, and somebody’s got to sit and go through that. … It’s not like a video where someone’s watching while you’re out there. There’s a lag on it.”

Another key question, of course, would be who would bear the cost of placing special satellite tracking and video monitioring systems on boats, not to mention the personnel cost of onboard observers. The early version of the “fishing zone” option seemed to put that burden on anglers.

“The tricky part of that,” Crabtree pointed out, “is that you may only get selected one out of five years, or maybe never again. So there could be the potential cash layout you would make, and you’d only be able to fish one (season).

“… I suspect, based on some analysis, that depending on the number of vessels you’ve let in, this whole fishery could be over in a month. In practical terms, would … a vessel owner invest this to go out for that short period of time or for that very small, minimal landing?”

Council member Rita Merritt also questioned the cost factor in terms of fairness.

“For commercial and for head-boat, charter boat captains, the cost of these things are pretty much all a part of the business,” Merritt said. “It’s nice that they can participate in the reimbursement program, but when you’re talking about the recreational sector, I think you’re starting to make it an elitist group by requiring some of these things.

“Because the only ones who are ever going to be able to afford their sport, and pay for that kind of equipment, whether they can get reimbursed or not, ... are probably the very cream of the economic (crop) of recreational fishermen.”

Whether the council chooses to endorse the fishing zone option or simply shut down bottom fishing over large contiguous areas may hinge on scientific analysis conducted this fall. But reaction during upcoming public hearings could also play a part.

These public hearings are expected to be held in the first two weeks of November.

When is science good enough?

When it comes to red snapper, you won’t find many points on which all parties agree.

But there is one: Anglers have been catching more red snapper during the past few years. This trend of good fishing has stoked the fire of debate — anglers ask how fishery managers can justify draconian measures when the situation seems to be improving. Many anglers see improved catches as proof-positive that government scientists simply don’t know what’s going on out ther under the waves. Their mathematical models must be wrong. Their assumptions about age class and biomass must be wrong. Something is wrong.

During the Q&A session at the September meeting, angler after angler questioned the scientific findings about red snapper populations. Eddie Williams, a Mount Pleasant recreational angler, said he’s running into so many red snapper at one nearshore spot that he can’t even get his baits through the schools to fish for flounder. Johnson, the St. Augustine captain, said recent changes to size and bag limits are actually working.

“This red snapper fishery actually is recovering right now, or we wouldn’t be catching the fish we’re catching,” Johnson said. “You should be applauding yourself for the 20-inch size limit and the gains that you’ve made, instead of penalizing us for obeying the law and trying to be good stewards.”

Other anglers say fisheries biologists are overestimating the number of red snapper that die when released. Still others, like Mount Pleasant charter captain Mark Brown, argue that recent findings of 50-year-old fish may be skewing the science and leading to unrealistic assumptions about population age structure. Such anglers contend that just because older fish don’t show up in scientific surveys doesn’t mean they’re not out there. They may just be harder to hook and harder to land, so they don’t show up as often in the scientists’ data sets.

SAFMC scientists maintain that a strong breeding season in 2004 represents the primary cause of improved red snapper catches. Protecting those fish, Crabtree said, could help the stock improve more quickly than expected and hasten a possible revival of bottom-fishing.

“We all agree with you that red snapper has improved over the past 10 years or so, and the catches have gone way up in the last couple of years,” Crabtree said. “There’s a big year class of red snapper out there right now ... But the problem remains that all of the science we have, and all the science advice we have indicates that we’re overfishing. And the law requires us to end overfishing. We have to do it immediately. So that’s the bind we’re in.”

Some council members also staunchly defend scientific findings on age structure. Additional research conducted during the summer verifies that red snapper can live to be 50 or more years old. Scientists know this because they analyzed the ear bones, or otiliths, of red snapper caught off the Southeast coast. Like tree rings, these bones give clear indication of a fish’s age.

“The S.C. DNR and the Florida DNR did that study over the summer because the fishermen said we’re not getting the ages of the fish correct,” Harris said. “So there was a massive effort this summer to go out and get fish from fishermen, collect the otiliths, bring them back to the labs and age them. And it basically confirmed what we’ve been saying.”

Erik Williams, a scientist with the SAFMC’s Scientific and Statistical Committee, defended his group’s findings during the Q&A session. The problem, he said, is that there are too many young red snapper, and not enough older fish.

“By far, age data is one of our best data sources. The whole history of fisheries science is based largely on the study of recruitment dynamics and the study of the age structure of fish.

“We know that in many other species there is this progression through the ages, and there is a mortality associated with that. We know that there should be this structure out there. Yes, we have these spikes of high and low year classes, but on average, … if you have a fish that lives to 50, you should expect to see a certain proportion of them between 40 and 50, between 30 and 40, and between 20 and 30. It’s shown up in almost every fish you can imagine.

“… In this case, with red snapper, we have pretty good age data, and it’s showing that severe truncation (too few older fish). You take that to almost any fisheries scientist in the country, show him that, tell him that red snapper live to be 50, and he’ll say, ‘That’s a problem.’ ”

Making waves

Whatever option fisheries managers endorse in the next few months, the decision will send waves through Southeastern angling communities.

Will there be a rush of anglers into waters just outside the closed areas? Would state and federal enforcement agencies be prepared to handle such an effort shift?

If recreational anglers can’t catch snapper and grouper, where will they turn their attention next, and how will that affect tackle shops and boat dealers?

Will charter captains who specialize in bottom fishing switch to other species or just give it up?

Will commercial snapper-grouper fishermen go out of business? If so, will seafood stores and restaurants take snapper and grouper off the menu, or simply rely more heavily on imports?

During the Q&A in September, Frank Blum, executive director of S.C. Seafood Alliance and a former snapper-grouper commercial fishermen, asked if there would be federal “compensation for retraining or buyouts” for anglers put out of business.

Chairman Harris said commercial anglers should contact their congressional representatives once the SAFMC makes its decision on Amendment 17A. Financial help from the federal government is not unheard of in U.S. fisheries, he said.

“The Northeast of the country, in order to mitigate the impact of fishing regulations, got some money for the fishermen,” Harris said. “That’s not something the council or the National Marine Fisheries can do on your behalf. That’s something that the fishermen did up there, in working with their senators and congresspeople.”

Courtland Babcock, a recreational angler from Hilton Head, wondered about “what comes down the line two or three years from now.”

“Where are you going to draw the line,” Courtland asked. “Are you going to close bottom fishing for three years, then close trolling species for three years? There seems to be better management practices for the long haul, because those of us who fish are going to fish one way or the other.”

“Absolutely” Harris said. “We were moving down the road toward ecosystem management when the Magnusun Act was reauthorized, and contained a provision that council was required to end overfishing within one year for a species that we were told is undergoing overfishing. So we have one year to do that, and it’s a species-by-species approach.

“What you’re talking about is ecosystem management, where we take into account what fishermen do based on regulations. A regulation here forces fishermen into another species over here, and therefore the catch of that species goes up. If we can ever get to ecosystem management and truly do that, I think we solve your issue and we solve the problem.”

Reach Matt Winter, Tideline senior editor, at 843-937-5568 or mwinter@postandcourier.com.