The Dizzying Spin of the National Park Service in Banning Fishing

Editor’s Note: The National Park Service has been increasingly aggressive nationwide at shutting anglers out of traditional fishing areas in the name of conservation, with Biscayne N.P. one of the most recent targets. Here’s a well-worded response, from Mike Leonard, Ocean Resource Policy Director of the American Sportfishing Association.

Mike Leonard, Ocean Resource Policy Director
American Sportfishing Association
from The Fishing Wire

A recent press release from Biscayne National Park that ran in the Friday, July 10 edition of the Fishing Wire highlights the creative spin that the National Park Service is using to support its railroading of the recreational fishing community in implementing a 10,000 acre no-fishing zone in the park.

The National Park Service claims that its final General Management Plan was, “crafted with extensive involvement from the public and local, state, and federal agencies.” In reality, the marine reserve concept was initiated by the previous park superintendent and forced through the plan development process by Park Service staff despite consistent objections from the Park’s own fisheries working group, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the recreational fishing and boating community.

Backing the Park Service throughout this process has been the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), an environmental organization whose seemingly sole purpose is to defend the National Park Service. The Park Service is citing the majority of the 43,000 public comments it received in support of the marine reserve as justification for its decision. Most of these comments were provided by form letters initiated by NPCA and its national database. The Park Service seems to be giving greater weight to these form letters than input from local users of the resource and from the state fisheries agency that shares management responsibility with the Park Service.

Florida has one of the nation’s premier fisheries management agencies in the FWC, as evidenced by the tremendous fishing opportunities it helps to provide throughout the state. The FWC knows how to balance public access with resource sustainability. Overfishing simply doesn’t occur in fisheries managed by the state.

Nevertheless, the Park Service believes it knows best and completely disregarded the objections to the marine reserve by the state. The FWC’s position is that the marine reserve is excessively restrictive, and that other, less restrictive management options could achieve resource management goals while allowing for continued public access.

If the marine reserve was so resoundingly supported by the public and such an obviously positive approach, as the Park Service is now spinning it, one has to wonder why, back in 2012, the Park Service stepped back from it and entered into negotiations with the FWC on other alternatives. These alternatives, which included options like fishing permits or seasonal closures, would have required more active and intensive management, but still would have achieved resource goals while allowing for continued public access. In the end, the Park Service decided take its ball and go home, and instead went with the easier, lazier approach in which it simply gets to tell the public, “you can’t fish here.”

Ultimately, this closure drives home the point that recreational fishing is under attack from organizations and agencies that don’t understand or appreciate the economic, social and conservation benefits that recreational fishing provides to the nation. There were many individuals and organizations who stepped up in a big way to fight back against the Biscayne marine reserve, but clearly it wasn’t enough to overcome the Park Service’s predestined decision. Hopefully Florida’s Congressional delegation will take action to stop this and similar unwarranted closures from being implemented without state approval. But nevertheless, the recreational fishing community needs to be better positioned to engage in these issues going forward.

Through our new Keep Florida Fishing initiative, the American Sportfishing Association is working to unite Florida’s recreational fishing community to ensure that these types of unwarranted closures don’t happen again in the state. There are 5 million saltwater anglers in Florida, and thousands of recreational fishing-dependent businesses. If we can come together and speak loudly with one voice, even the Park Service can’t ignore us.

Shark Sanctuaries
Rusty Hudson
from The Fishing Wire

(Editor’s Note: Here’s an interesting assessment of the flurry of shark attacks along the Atlantic Coast this summer, from a retired waterman with decades of experience not only as a harvester of sharks, but also as a consulting expert on the shark fishery for many federal panels. It’s heavy going, with a lot of acronyms, but those interested in really understanding the shark issue may find it instructive.)

The Unintended Consequence from Underfishing and Overregulation

I am Rusty Hudson, a shark specialist with personal experience in United States Atlantic shark fishing since the 1960’s and with Florida watermen heritage dating back several generations along the southeastern US coast. I provide, below, a historical time line and description of factors associated with shark fishery management policy that corresponds with evidence how U.S. shark attacks have increased.

US Shark Attack Graph: http://www.sharkattackdata.com/country-overview/united_states_of_america

During the late 1970’s, the US federal government began a preliminary shark fishery management plan (FMP) by the US Department of Commerce (DOC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the agency called the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that promoted and encouraged fishermen to land under-utilized marine species (e.g. sharks) for food.

The US commercial fishing industry followed the US government’s advice during the 1980’s to catch, land sharks and develop seafood marketing, domestically and internationally. The public demand for sharks increased in the US at this stage, but the NMFS failed to monitor the commercial coastal shark landings averaging up to fifteen million pounds dressed weight (dw) in the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

In the later part of the 1980’s, China, during Deng Xiaoping’s reformation period, increased demand for shark fin soup, one of eight traditional Chinese culinary treasures, as a result of increases in the newly affluent population. Shark’s fin values, and shark harvests worldwide, began to increase significantly into the 1990’s, due to increasing publicity.

Shark Fin Article: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2011/06/sharkonomics.html

By the end of the 1980’s, the NMFS staff began an effort to develop an Atlantic Shark FMP involving the US EEZ area from Maine to Texas, and a portion of the Caribbean Sea region, including the US Territories of Puerto Rico, St. Croix and the US Virgin Islands. On April 26, 1993, the Atlantic Shark FMP final rule was published and the NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division closed US Atlantic shark fishing on May 15, 1993.

During the early 1990’s, some scientists lobbied the state of Florida to consider a mercury warning resulting from the consumption of shark meat. Overnight, the sale of shark meat fell dramatically throughout the US (a result similar to the media-driven mercury scare over swordfish consumption during the 1970’s). After much mass media hype, the state of Florida and other states mainly established mercury advisories to pregnant women, yet the damage to US fish markets was significant as shark sales fell by more than half. Subsequently, the Atlantic Shark FMP became effective and resulted in additional reductions with coastal shark landings.

Shark fishing began to be negatively publicized in the news media, on television with quasi-science documentaries, and with anti-shark fishing media campaigns, sponsored by environmental non-governmental organizations seeking membership funding.

The Atlantic Shark FMP, in addition to restrictive coastal states shark fishing rules, has been creating what amount to US shark sanctuaries for decades. This has been a result of reliance upon questionable stock assessment results, long rebuilding plans, reduced quotas, lowering trip limits, prohibited shark species, limited access permits, choke species, minimum sizes and closed access for fishing regions.

Below is a timeline of major events that have significantly increased US Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks (LCS) populations near beaches, leading to more shark attacks in my opinion, and negatively interacting with numerous nearshore and offshore fisheries over the past decade in the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions:

1. In March, 1992, Florida limits commercial shark fishing in state waters to one large shark landed daily, and banned most shark fishing gear, except for rod and reels out to three-miles on the east coast and nine-miles on the Florida west coast. Subsequently, New Smyrna Beach, Florida became known as the “shark attack capital of the world” because of the shark sanctuary benefit from underfishing and overregulation. This area is just south of Ponce de Leon Inlet, and the attacks are mostly by blacktip sharks.

2. On April 26, 1993, the NMFS published the Atlantic Shark FMP final rule with a LCS quota of about 5.3 million pounds (dressed weight) closing Large Coastal Shark (LCS) fishing for 6 months that year [which has reoccurred almost every year], and the NMFS made shark finning illegal. Over two-thousand open access commercial shark permits were bought by fishermen, as required by the NMFS Atlantic Shark FMP new rules.

3. In January 1994 a commercial LCS trip limit of 4000-pounds (dw) was implemented to slow the harvest down; but the fishing season for large coastal species still only lasted about six months that year, and for many shark fishing seasons afterwards.

4. During April 1997 a 50% LCS commercial quota reduction final rule was published, and the NMFS stated that the reduction would not have a negative socio-economic impact. However, under federal court remand, the NMFS later restated that the quota reduction would have “a significant economic effect” on commercial shark fisheries and the ancillary businesses that depended on the LCS resource, which was reduced to nearly 2.6 million pounds (dw) annually.

5. A prohibited shark species complex was started in 1997, and expanded in 1999, but was not founded upon science-based stock assessments for these 19-shark species. Subsequently only one species, the dusky shark, has had a US stock assessment since, conducted during 2006, again in 2010, and an update assessment is scheduled for 2016.

6. During 1999, a limited access permit system was implemented that significantly reduced the US directed shark fishing fleet from Maine to Texas. The number of these limited permits originally issued has shrunk significantly, as they have required annual renewal over the last 15 years. A vessel owner has to purchase an existing shark limited access permit, either a directed or an incidental permit, to sell a shark for food.

7. Closure of areas to pelagic longline (PLL) fishing began during late 2000 into 2001, regulations that currently remain in place for the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico PLL fleets. A significant reduction of vessels with the swordfish/tuna fleet occurred in Florida, and elsewhere. The marketing of incidentally-caught sharks fell, helping to cause the pelagic and coastal shark stock populations to expand faster than expected.

8. For the 2003 shark fishing season, based on a new LCS stock assessment, the NMFS raised the LCS quotas up to almost 3.8 million pounds dw, nearly an additional million pounds.

9. Subsequently, in 2004, the NMFS lowered the LCS quota to about 2.2 million pounds dw, until shark dealers could be species specific with the shark identification when submitting landing reports to the NMFS. Since 2007, shark dealers must attend the NMFS special classes to renew their shark identification certificates every three-years.

10. Effective January 01-July 31, 2005 a habitat area of particular concern (HAPC), for the sandbar shark nursery and pupping area, was implemented offshore of North Carolina offshore to 55-fathoms of depth. This action helped enhance the shark sanctuary effect for juvenile sandbar sharks that are preyed upon by other adult shark species (e.g. bull sharks), which feed near the beaches, based on optimal environmental conditions, such as water temperature, that may attract and aggregate prey item forage fish.

11. The controversial 2006 LCS stock assessment by NMFS led to the lower 2008 sandbar shark quota and trip-limit changes for LCS fishing. Sandbar shark was limited to a small shark research fleet with 100% observer coverage, while a 33 non-sandbar LCS trip limit was implemented for the directed shark fishing fleet. This created a virtual day-boat fishery for LCS where landings became less than half as much by weight per trip when compared to the 4000-pound dw trip limit. The historical landings for sandbar sharks were about 38% of the total LCS catch, normally caught offshore, and other commercially important LCS, such as blacktip, bull, lemon and tiger sharks during many conditions are found in or near state waters, rather than just offshore in the US EEZ waters. Shark fins were required to be naturally attached to the dressed carcass until unloaded at the dock with this new NMFS HMS management regulation.

12. Beginning in 2013, the trip limit increased to 36 LCS to land quotas that total about 1.77 million pounds dw, though total LCS landings were 1.42 million pounds dw. The shark sanctuary regions continued to grow because the NMFS used some shark species (i.e. blacknose shark & large hammerhead sharks) as “choke species” to close down larger shark quotas before they were 100% harvested. This unintended consequence from underfishing has created in the US waters a rapid LCS and small coastal shark (SCS) population expansion.

13. The 2014 quotas was set at nearly 1.79 million pounds dw, though total LCS landings were only 1.33 million pounds dw. The 2015 LCS quotas totaled nearly 1.92 million pounds dw though final LCS landings from Maine to Texas will not be known to the public until 2016.

14. Commercial directed shark fishermen have reported, and US government independent shark surveys have documented for several years now, the extremely high catch per unit of effort (CPUE) that is occurring near shore and offshore. (Editor’s Note: A high CPUE means that those who participate in the fishery catch a lot of fish in a short period of time, which usually indicates an abundance of the target species, at least in the targeted area.)

NOAA Coastal Shark Survey 2012: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/2013/SciSpot/SS1309/2012survey.pdf

The NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) claims they do not have enough funding, or NMFS analysts, to conduct shark stock assessments and have significantly delayed future science stock assessments for many shark species as a result. The tentative SEFSC schedule for reassessing sandbar shark has been delayed until 2020. Meanwhile, landings for sandbar shark, dusky shark and LCS species, in general, are setting new CPUE records that must be utilized in future stock assessments to indicate just how far ahead of schedule the rebuilding plans have come in 22 years of management.

15. Non-sandbar LCS fishing opened for the US east coast on July 01, 2015, though the North Carolina HAPC region out to 55 fathoms (330-feet) of depth will not open for shark fishing until August 1, 2015 as required, demonstrating how commercial fishing was not really part of the recent increase of NC shark attacks.

In my professional opinion, the decades of underfishing sharks has led to the unintended consequence of creating shark sanctuaries.

The American public are hearing about more frequent shark sightings and attacks along numerous US beaches. The expanding shark populations are negatively interacting with many US saltwater fisheries, causing large financial losses. These growing shark populations are the unfortunate evidence of how the US federal shark fishery has been poorly managed. The NMFS SEFSC inability to perform timely shark stock assessments is an unacceptable management decision that is negatively affecting the public and shark fishing interests who support sustainable LCS & SCS fishing removals from properly assessed coastal shark stocks.

Russell Howard Hudson is president of Directed Sustainable Fisheries, a commercial fishing support group in Daytona Beach, Florida. He is a retired recreational/commercial fishing captain, and has been deeply involved in coastal fisheries management as a volunteer consultant on a wide variety of federal research panels, particularly those involving shark management.

Florida Barracuda one step closer to better management

Today’s feature comes to us courtesy the Snook & Gamefish Foundation—read more about this conservation group at www.snookfoundation.org.

By Mike Hodge
from The Fishing Wire

The barracuda is considered among the fiercest predators on the flats, yet the feisty fish has had little protection when it comes to bag limits in the state of Florida. That may change thanks to the Snook & Gamefish Foundation and other conservation organizations.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) took a big step last week toward establishing regulations to protect barracuda when it announced a proposal restricting recreational and commercial harvests of the fish.

During a public hearing in Sarasota, the FWC staff presented a draft rule to the commissioners, who will formally vote on the measure this fall.

The rule will create:

· a recreational and commercial slot limit of 15 to 36 inches

· a recreational daily bag limit of two fish per person

· a commercial vessel limit of 20 fish

SGF members and staff applauded the recent developments.

“These proposed regulations by the FWC show a deep commitment to protecting and ensuring the sustainability of a species that many people simply overlook, or call a ‘trash fish,’ ” said Mike Readling, chairman of the SGF’s Board of Directors. “As we know, every species is critical to the fine balance of our marine ecosystems, including the toothy ones with poor reputations. These new limits will go a long way toward curbing massive, unnecessary harvests of barracuda, and the Snook and Gamefish Foundation is proud and excited that our iAngler app was singled out by the FWC as one of the avenues to a scientific-based solution for the documentation of this species.”

The FWC, which has not done a formal stock assessment for barracuda, has encouraged fishermen to use the SGF’s Angler Action Program (AAP), an electronic logbook, to help monitor the population.

Photo: dan Decibel”Florida anglers are really lucky to have this commission and science staff,” said SGF Executive Director Brett Fitzgerald, who is particularly satisfied with Florida’s continued willingness to stretch the boundaries of conventional fishery management. “FWC has allowed FWRI to be very progressive, and they are willing to look into new solutions to old fishing problems. In this case, using recreational angler data from the AAP represents a huge shift in the culture of fishery science. Anglers truly are plugged in — directly — to the system. Now every fishing trip that is logged counts towards a brighter fishing future.

“What’s cool is, we didn’t set the system up to help specifically with ‘cudas. But here we are, contributing meaningful info for the protection of that species. And you can bet many more species will follow. The power to improve fishing is truly in our own hands. It’s an opportunity that is unprecedented and well earned by the anglers who have been faithfully logging in the AAP.

“We at SGF can’t say enough good things about the FWRI staff, from top to bottom. Their guidance throughout the AAP development process has been continuous and critical. It’s really an honor to share ideas with them and see the ideas come to fruition.”

Anglers in South Florida, the Keys in particular, have complained that barracuda numbers have declined in recent years, which prodded the Lower Keys Guides Association (LKGA) to launch the Save the Barracuda Campaign.

It took nearly two years, but the LKGA concerns have been addressed.

“Barracuda are amazing sport fish, and intricate part to the nearshore flats fishery of the lower Keys and Key West,” LKGA President Luke Kelly said. “When winter weather proves tough for other gamefish, barracuda fill the gaps providing great action on the shallows for the many travelers who find themselves south during winter. We at the LKGA are very happy to see the action taken by the FWC on this important issue.”

No one knows for sure why the South Florida barracuda population has appeared to be dwindling, but commercial harvests could be part of the issue. According to the FWC, commercial harvest of Keys barracuda has increased dramatically the past few years, from 10,000 pounds in 2011 to 50,000 in 2013.

Barracuda is considered an unregulated species commercially, meaning commercial fishermen can harvest as much as they want. Recreational anglers are limited two Cuda or 100 pounds, whichever is greater.

New regulations, if approved, should help, but Fitzgerald warned against complacency.

“We aren’t done yet,” he said. “This is a case where there is power in numbers. We anglers need to continue logging, continue recruiting new anglers into the Angler Action Program’s system. If we were to let this privilege slip by because we decided not to log, we’d really be doing ourselves a disservice.”

The final hearing on barracuda regulations will be held at the FWC Commission meeting in Weston (Sept. 2-3).

*photo credit: Image with ‘cuda and fly reel courtesy of Dan Decibel.

Sharks!

By Frank Sargeant, Editor
from The Fishing Wire

OK, folks, which part of this are we not getting?

There are a whole bunch of sharks right now on the beaches of the Carolinas, probably because of the annual baitfish run, which has brought a lot of small blues and other fish into the surf, which in turn has put feeding sharks very close to shore.

If you swim where there are a lot of feeding sharks, the odds that you will get bitten are not, as shark apologists keep telling us, much smaller than the chance you will get hit by lightening or the odds that you will get in an auto accident on the highway.

White sharks get most of the bad press when it comes to shark bite, but they’re actually rarely involved in incidents along East Coast beaches. (Florida FWC Photo)
They are relatively good. Or bad, actually, considering the result of even an “exploratory” bite by a shark of just about any size beyond a pup.

When the apologists, who want to let us all know that, hey, sharks wouldn’t really want to bite people, it’s all just a mistake, talk about shark bite odds, they conveniently ignore the fact that EVERYBODY is exposed to lightening anytime they’re outside anywhere across the nation. And that virtually everybody in America is also exposed, on a daily basis, to auto accidents.

That’s not the case with sharks–a relatively few people are fortunate enough to vacation on the beaches, and they are in the water for only a few hours a day. On the basis of exposure, shark bite is not so rare as some would have it seem.

A 17-year old was bitten Saturday at Cape Hatteras National Sea Shore, the second attack in two days, and the sixth along Carolina beaches in the last two weeks. It’s one of the more remarkable runs of attacks in any area of the U.S. coast in modern history.

Does this mean that sharks are actually vindictive creatures hungering for human flesh and patrolling swimming beaches with an eye out for tasty legs and feet?

Of course not.

What it means is that sharks are wild, predatory animals which feed opportunistically, like most predators–if they did not, they would not survive. Opportunistic feeding includes a willingness to take a bite now and then of unknown but potentially-edible food sources, including human appendages temptingly dangling where the shark is already in a feeding mood due to other food in the water–and where the visibility is not all that good to begin with.

Some are calling for an end to shark fishing off piers in the area, but sharks in the numbers that are showing up on the Carolina beaches do not appear magically when a couple of guys start tossing baits in the water. The sharks are there because of large natural food sources, and they will be there until that food moves on, which it surely will in short order–nothing stays put in the ocean except the reef species, and even they migrate seasonally.

Bull sharks are the bad boys of nearshore waters, frequently prowling into the surf and sometimes traveling well up coastal rivers. They often feed in areas where beach-goers are present. (Frank Sargeant Photo)

Another strategy that won’t work is killing sharks in areas where the bites have occurred. The shark that bit a swimmer at Hatteras today may be 50 miles north or south by this time tomorrow. The fact that more bites occur in close proximity do not mean that a “rogue” shark is hunting humans, it simply means that there is a pretty dense population of sharks in the area.

Bottom line is that sharks must be treated like grizzly bears and African lions and other dangerous predators with the capability to prey on whatever wanders into their habitat.

Don’t swim where sharks are known to be concentrated, and particularly not where they are seen feeding–a shark close to the beach is almost always there because of a food source–otherwise, they want more water under their bellies.

Don’t swim where visibility is poor–any animate object that pops suddenly into a shark’s view at close range may draw a reflex bite.

Don’t swim in low light conditions–see above. Also, many sharks prefer to feed in low light, when their sense of smell and movement gives them an advantage over prey that needs sight to avoid them.

And don’t be misled into the idea that sharks are simply Bambi without the antlers, promoted to some extent by YouTube videos that show intrepid divers handling them. A shark not homed in on food and in crystal clear water is a whole lot less dangerous than one where there’s fish blood, wave action and clouded visibility.

Answer to Red Snapper Issue Already Exists
Chris Horton
from The Fishing Wire

I recently read an editorial that suggested recreational anglers should look to the North American Wildlife Conservation Model (North American Model) for answers to the red snapper management debacle in the Gulf of Mexico. While I’m grateful to see this highly successful and epochal model referenced in this unfortunately contentious debate over one of the South’s most iconic saltwater fish species, it became clear that the author, and probably most Americans, are not familiar with the “model” he referenced. Ironically, suggesting recreational anglers look to this model is perhaps the best argument yet for state-based management of our nation’s red snapper fishery, as well as all of our important marine recreational fisheries. States, in cooperation and with the support of recreational anglers and the sport fishing industry, have used this model to successfully manage our nation’s inland fish and wildlife resources for the benefit of all American’s for the last century.

The whole concept of the North American Model is built on the premise that all fish and wildlife are held in public trust and belong to the people – not designated individuals for personal gain. That is actually the first tenant in the North American Model, which has seven principal tenants in all.

However, it is in the second tenant where we find the most defining disparity between federal fisheries management and the North American Model. It states, “Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife – Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.” Of course, that suggests that there be no commercial fishing, period. The model realizes that all you need to do to decimate fish and wildlife populations is provide an open market on what you can harvest from the wild, which is why market hunting was rendered illegal more than 100 years ago. Incidentally, inland game fish, with very few exceptions in certain waterbodies of the country, are prohibited from commercial sale as well. Perhaps that is why you never hear of an inland fishery being “overfished” as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and lends credence to Theodore Roosevelt’s quote, “In a civilized and cultivated country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen.”

Although ending commercial fishing would do more for the sustainability of our marine fisheries resources than the Magnuson-Stevens Act has ever done, the majority of recreational anglers are not advocating for the elimination of commercial fishing, despite many in that industry attempting to muddy the water with claims to the contrary. We simply want a system of management that provides appropriate access to the resource.

Finally, in the same article, habitat restoration was also advised as something recreational anglers should pursue for the long-term sustainability of marine fish stocks. Fortunately, recreational anglers stepped up to carry that burden long ago, not the commercial fishermen or the environmental community. In addition to the license we buy just to go fishing, every time we purchase a package of hooks, a fishing rod, reel, lure, tackle box, depth finder, trolling motor, fuel for our fishing boat, etc., we gladly pay an excise tax that goes into a fund called the Sport Fishing and Boating Trust Fund. The majority of those funds go back to the states for fisheries conservation, angling and boating access and boating safety. However, 18.5% of that fund is dedicated to a program called the Coastal Wetlands Program. In 2015 alone, that 18.5% equates to around $112 million going to on the ground projects to conserve and restore coastal habitats. It’s part of the American System of Conservation Funding – paid for solely by anglers and boaters – and it’s the lifeblood of the North American Model.

Recreational anglers have indeed looked to the North American Model for answers. We helped develop it, we vigorously defend it and we gladly fund it – not just for today, but for generations of American’s to come. It is not recreational anglers who need to look to the North American Model for direction, but our federal fisheries managers.

Chris Horton
Midwestern States Director
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation