Florida's senators have mounted an effort to block creation of a no-fishing marine reserve in Biscayne National Park/NPS
A congressional effort has been launched to block a plan by Biscayne National Park officials to set aside 6 percent of the park for a marine reserve in a bid to restore and protect a stretch of the only tropical coral reef system in the continental United States, and the boating and fishing industry has quickly jumped on board in support of the legislation.
It was a year ago that the park approved its general management plan, which calls for a no-fishing marine reserve zone of 10,502 acres to improve the declining reef's condition. Of the few hundred species that inhabit the park's waters, 150 have faced population pressures from recreational and commercial fishing, according to the Park Service.
"A marine reserve is one of the most effective ways for us to encourage restoration of the park's coral reef ecosystem and it received strong support from the public during development of the plan," then-Superintendent Brian Carlstrom said a year ago. "In addition to producing larger fish and more fish for snorkelers and divers to enjoy, the marine reserve is expected to have a spillover effect, improving the fishing experience outside the zone."
But the fishing and boating industry disagrees with the park's position, as does Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, who introduced legislation earlier this month to prevent the Park Service from creating the marine reserve as it has proposed. Cosponsoring the measure is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida.
Under S. 3099, before the marine reserve could be created (the Park Service has yet to go through the rule-making process to set it up), the Park Service would have to go through formal consultation and coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission of the State of Florida. Additionally, the bill calls for science produced by the state of Florida to take precedence over the science the Park Service used to justify creation of the marine reserve.
While those lining up behind the senators say the marine reserve isn't needed, back in 2001 scientists warned that the park's fisheries were facing 'imminent collapse' without immediate help and protection. Additionally, by including 2,663 acres of coral reef in the preserve, the Park Service would contribute towards the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force's goal of having 20 percent of Florida's reefs within such reserves.
During the drafting of the GMP, an open letter, co-signed by Jean-Michel Cousteau founder of the Ocean's Future Society, National Geographic Explorer- in-Residence Sylvia Earle, and Senior Scientist Emeritus Jeremy Jackson at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stated that: "The establishment of a marine reserve is the best, most effective method for protecting Biscayne's severely threatened coral reef ecosystem."
At the National Parks Conservation Association, Caroline McLaughlin, the group's Biscayne program manager, said Wednesday that the park's fisheries needed protections provided by the marine reserve to rebound.
"This bill would effectively block the creation of a desperately needed marine reserve in Biscayne National Park. The marine reserve was decided upon after 15 years of scientific analysis, interagency cooperation at the state and federal levels, and a thoughtful and transparent public process. Of the 43,000 public comments collected by the Park Service during that process, more than 90 percent were in favor of the marine reserve," she said in an email.
"Biscayne has been overfished and over-stressed for decades. Experts at the National Park Service confirmed that Biscayne’s coral reefs are dying, and that some species are on the verge of collapse. Once plentiful native fish like mangrove snapper and black grouper are at record low levels of abundance and most are too small for anglers to keep," continued Ms. McLaughlin. "In fact, recent studies show that a majority of snapper and grouper caught in the park are below state, federal, and international standards for sustainability.
"This marine reserve is the only way to protect Biscayne’s fisheries sustainably over the long-term and will help bring more fish back to Florida, increasing fish size, diversity, and abundance. With 95 percent of the national park as water, around six percent will be included in the marine reserve, a small portion of the total park."
But the marine boating industry fears the no-fishing zone would have too great an impact on Florida's fishing economy.
“Recreational fishing is a tremendous economic driver in the U.S., supporting 828,000 jobs,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “Senators Nelson and Rubio deserve tremendous credit for their leadership in tackling issues of importance to the recreational fishing community not only in Florida but throughout the country. We are extremely pleased with the action today by the Senate Commerce Committee to advance this important legislation.”
While Biscayne officials worked for more than 15 years on the general management plan, and received about 43,000 comments on the draft GMP, opponents claim the Park Service didn't fairly conduct the review and drafting of the plan.
“After attempting to work in good faith with the National Park Service for many years to find a more reasonable path forward, it’s clear that Congressional action is needed to prevent this unwarranted marine reserve from going into effect,” said Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association in a story posted Wednesday by Boating Industry magazine. “Any decision as drastic as closing public waters must be based on sound science with efforts made to minimize negative impacts to stakeholders. Thankfully, this bill will ensure a more fair and science-based process is followed.”
Some members of the Florida congressional delegation last year mounted an effort to overturn the park's plan. Their legislation would require the Park Service and Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to have approval from state fish and wildlife agencies before closing state waters to recreational or commercial fishing.
At NPCA. Ms. McLaughlin said the park advocacy group would continue to fight the efforts to weaken the park's protections.
"We will continue to strongly oppose this bill (S.3099) to make sure it doesn’t prevent the National Park Service from doing their job as caretakers of America’s national parks or block efforts to protect coral reefs and native fish in Biscayne National Park," she said.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
The information is out there, one just needs to make an effort to find it and do a little thinking on their own.
Right. But also make certain one is not reading and listening to only a one-sided echo chamber. Read, listen and consider what the other side presents, too. (Even if sometimes, you need to keep a barf bag handy.)
Y'never know. Y'might just learn something once in awhile --- even if it's just to learn what kind of people we need to watch out for . . . .
And, by the way, you ignored one key word in what I wrote. I did not say there is a paucity of news sources.
Sadly, after nearly 40 years in professional journalism (man, that makes me sound old!), I would have to agree with EC, though some media are worse than others. I do find The Economist plays pretty darn close to the middle of the road, though...
Lee, I'm afraid there are no and never have been totally unbiased news sources. Thats why I like to learn the facts and make my own conclusions rather than rely on opinions and baseless accusations.
So, like all the rest of us, Esteemed Comrade, you are forced to try to seek facts in a fib-filled world and reach your own opinions while making your own baseless accusations or misinterpreting comments of others, either accidentally or intentionally. I respect your right to do that, but disagree strongly with most of your conclusions.
Enjoy your Fourth. Safely.
Lee, I really don't think your last comment was warranted. Let's try to keep gratuitous comments off this site, and remember that dictum: If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't write it here.
Sorry, Kurt. I don't think it was gratuitious. I was simply trying to point out that he seems to be guilty of the same things he accuses others of doing. And if I had the opportunity, I would say it to him, just as I"m sure he'd say what he thinks to me. At least neither of us are hiding behind anonymity.
The modern explosion of instant media is a world shaking revolution -- at least as earth shaking as the advent of the printing press. But there is such a plethora of misinformation and deliberate deception out there it requires constant vigilence by all of us to try to pick and choose what may hopefully come from an honest and trustworthy source. To twist the words of someone else is not helping that.
So Lee, what baseless accusation have I made? I suppose I will get the same response I get to the question about climate "science" being so wrong. Crickets.
The old professor in me cannot resist reminding everyone to stay cool and enjoy the debate. At least there is a debate in the pages of The Traveler, which is more than I can say for the modern university with its speech codes, trigger warnings, and "safe zones." Just the other day, I met a young man attending the University of Washington who reminded me it is worse than I thought. What used to be the Western Civilization (sic) requirement is now the Diversity Requirement. Apparently, the baseless accusations fall like rain.
Then is it acid rain, or just plain rain? Of course, if it rains more than "usual" it is global warming! And you get an F in class if you dare say otherwise.
This is to explain why our country is such a mess. If we don't "hear" exactly what we want to hear, we have been instructed to think of the speaker as our opponent rather than a fellow citizen with the right to speak.
Who did that to the country? I will tell you. The ideologues who took over higher education and politics, and now want to finish off free speech once and for all.
Note that I did not put a partisan value on ideologues, but yes, the worst are to the left of the political spectrum, because to them the end justifies the means. In college, out of my 31 undergraduate classes, seven assigned the Communist Manifesto and only one the U.S. Constitution. Lenin and even Stalin could do no wrong.
I resisted, collecting my Ds and Cs (fortunately, we had pass/fail). But I never forgot who tried to shut me up, and who then ridiculed me for my perspective on things.
It's worse now in the country than it's ever been. And unless we get past it--and past it in a hurry--we soon will have no country. Keep that in my mind before throwing your bricks. They just might land on something that will never recover, such as the very idea of democracy itself.