Fisheries managers pick area for bottom-fishing closure

A huge swath of offshore waters from Georgetown to the middle of Florida would be closed to bottom-fishing under a plan tentatively approved last month by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

The area proposed for closing follows depth contours from about 100 to 240 feet deep. Fishing for grouper, snapper and other bottom species would not be allowed, but anglers could still troll for billfish, dolphin and other gamefish.

The council picked the area from a number of options designed to save the imperiled red snapper. This particular closed area is notably smaller than those found in other alternatives, and the council’s decision reversed an earlier committee recommendation that would have closed a far larger area, including the water directly off Charleston.

“Our intent is to close the smallest area possible and still get the percent reduction we need in mortality,” Council Vice Chairman David Cupka said later.

The decision was made at a December 2009 meeting in Atlantic Beach, N.C. The alternative will be reviewed in May and could get a final vote in June. But the closure might not come before a new stock assessment is finished in December.

“We would still be able to fish some,” said Mark Brown, a Shem Creek charter boat captain in Mount Pleasant. “But a lot could change before June. We’ll just have to see how this all plays out.”

Last month’s vote followed a year of heated public hearings and a grueling, sometimes heated council meeting in September where members did not reach a decision.

Local commercial and recreational anglers have been among the large numbers that opposed closing the bottom off the four states regulated by the council, saying it wasn’t needed and would drive them out of business. They say government research to support the new restrictions was badly flawed. That assertion was a key part of the argument a group called the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) made recently when it sued in Jacksonville federal court to fight a stopgap six-month ban on all red snapper fishing.

The long-term snapper rules are unusually controversial because the fishing closures would prevent fishing for potentially dozens of other bottom fish in the same areas. Backers of the closure say a simple ban against red snapper catches wouldn’t be enough to bring the species back. A widespread ban on all forms of bottom-fishing is necessary because of bycatch mortality, they say. Many red snapper caught accidentally will die even if they’re returned to the water because of the stress of being hauled from a great depth quickly.

A number of environmental advocates, led by the Pew Environment Group of the Pew Charitable Trusts, have pushed for strong restrictions on bottom-fishing. Snapper populations may be just 3 percent of what’s needed for the species to breed in sustainable numbers, they say.

The leader of Pew’s red snapper campaign said last month that regulators should make certain whatever rules they adopt are strong enough to be effective. In planning how to preserve the species, “I think they need to make assumptions grounded in reality, showing that this plan has a high likelihood of success,” said Holly Binns, who runs Pew’s campaign against overfishing for the Southeast.

“No one wants to come back and take these more dramatic steps a few years down the road,” she said.

The vote last month was made working against a December deadline mandated by a new, stricter federal law that said the council must have rules in place by 2010 that would stop overfishing of the snapper. The closure is one of a number of regulations in process to protect snapper-grouper species that council counts indicate have been depleted.

In separate but related action last month, the management council also adopted plans meant to protect nine other fish species, including Warsaw grouper, snowy grouper and speckled hind. The measure includes rules shutting down fishing for eight species in one stretch of ocean.

Part of a larger debate

The future of offshore bottom-fishing could hinge on a variety of additional fisheries management issues beyond the implications of a bottom-fishing closure, the new red snapper stock assessment and the RFA’s lawsuit.

On one front, a group of lawmakers is pushing for legislation that would force regulators to put more emphasis on economic impact when deciding fishing restrictions. About two dozen congressmen have signed on to the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act, filed in the U.S. House by Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey. The Senate version was filed by Charles Schumer of New York.

Their effort has attracted endorsements from more than 100 recreational and commercial fishing organizations, as well as opposition from a phalanx of environmental groups and scientists.

The issue could gain even more attention Feb. 24, when fishing interests plan a national demonstration in Washington, D.C.

On yet another front, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced last month that it is ramping up efforts to expand a management system called “catch share” as a way to end overfishing.

This relatively new approach to fisheries management imposes a strict overall catch limit and divides that total catch among fishermen, communities, cooperatives or companies. Studies have found that when fishermen no longer have to race to fill their nets, they make more money by fishing less while doing a better job of conserving.

The new draft policy — meant to build support among fishermen and regional fishery management councils for catch shares — will go through a four-month public comment period ending April 10 before final adoption.

NOAA chief and marine biologist Jane Lubchenco has pushed catch shares as part of a comprehensive national ocean policy endorsed by President Barack Obama. But it can take years for regional fishery management councils to work through the process. Meanwhile, fishermen have struggled to make a living while fish processors have tried to gain more control.

Lubchenco said late last year that the latest NOAA appropriations bill included $18.6 million for the agency to help regional councils consider catch share, on top of the $6 million in the current budget. She emphasized the system is not mandatory.

The Environmental Defense Fund praised the new policy, saying that catch shares have restored fish populations while improving the livelihoods of fishermen.

“This policy will reverse the freefall that U.S. fish stocks have been in for decades,” David Festa, vice president of Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “It moves fisheries management into the 21st Century.”

Lee Crockett, federal fishery policy chief for Pew Environment Group, cautioned that it is important to design catch shares so they strengthen conservation and keep small-scale operators in business — without allowing the biggest players to take over.

Catch shares have been used in the U.S. since 1990 and now cover 13 fisheries including Alaskan halibut, Gulf red snapper and Atlantic surf clams.

The West Coast’s most valuable fishery, a group of bottom-dwelling species known as groundfish, has been rebuilding since 2000, when harvests were cut in half to protect overfished rockfish. Despite limiting harvests and cutting the fleet through buybacks, several groundfish species remain overfished. After five years of work, the fishery is to move into catch share management in 2011.

The New England groundfish fishery, which has been struggling for 15 years to rebuild cod and flounder stocks, is moving into a catch-shares system in which fishermen divide themselves into “sectors” and manage an allotted catch.

Sources: The Post and Courier, The Associated Press, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services, South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, NOAA