Editor's note: Not everyone agrees with the National Park Service's approach toward restoring its fishery. Carl Liederman, president of Capt. Harry’s Fishing Supply, believes the Park Service had a predetermined decision on creating a marine reserve zone that would be off-limits to recreational fishing, and didn't properly reach its decision. He submitted the following op-ed in response to Traveler's story on congressional efforts to block creation of the zone.
Not everyone agrees that the National Park Service has the correct solution to improving the health of Biscayne National Park's fisheries/NPS
As someone who has been actively involved in the development of the Biscayne National Park general management plan for over a decade, I was frustrated to read the misleading and inaccurate quotes from the National Park Service and the National Parks Conservation Association in the recent National Parks Traveler article, Florida Congressional Offices Want To Block Biscayne National Park's Fisheries Plan.
Particularly troubling were the disrespectful attacks on our Congressional representatives for working to ensure that their constituents and the state aren’t completely ignored in significant decisions like closing fishing access to such a vitally important area to our community.
I am the president of a small family business located in Miami, Florida. We have been in business for over 40 years and employ 30 people. Because our business has a huge financial dependence on healthy and sustainable fisheries, I have been involved in fishery issues on the local, state, and federal level for the past 30 years. Without sustainable fisheries our business and the jobs it supports cannot survive.
Most of Florida’s most popular fisheries are managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Working in concert with stakeholders and other agencies, the state has done a remarkable job in managing our fish and wildlife resources. From snook, seatrout, and redfish, to tarpon, bonefish, and permit, these stocks continue to thrive under the state. All of these successes have occurred by managing these resources, not closing them down.
I, and others in the recreational fishing community, agree with the FWC that fishing closures are a tool in the fisheries management toolbox, but should only be applied when clearly supported by science. I stand by the FWC in its opposition to the marine reserve in Biscayne National Park because it will do nothing to improve fisheries resources in the park.
The marine reserve is poorly designed and not scientifically justified. For example, the Dry Tortugas marine reserve, which the FWC supports, comprises a large area that has been identified as an important spawning area for many snapper/grouper species. It was developed in close consultation with the state and stakeholders.
The Biscayne marine reserve meets none of these criteria. It is insignificant from a biological perspective and will only serve to deter fishing participation and prevent the public from enjoying some of the most popular and productive areas of the park, amounting to over 30 percent of the reef tract.
In 2004, I was asked to participate in Biscayne National Park's fisheries working group. Our group was given the opportunity to help identify deficiencies in the fisheries resources within the park and then craft methods to restore these fisheries. Unfortunately, as the process moved forward, it became apparent that the park had its own agenda and was going to implement a marine reserve, regardless of stakeholder input or scientific justification.
The working group identified a series of comprehensive recommendations to improve the condition of the park’s fisheries resources, including a boating permit that would help fund management activities, more stringent species-specific fishing regulations, and improved enforcement and education. I am confident that these strategies would work if given a chance. But because the working group did not recommend a marine reserve, our recommendations essentially went ignored.
Biscayne National Park officials are now touting the lengthy public process they undertook during the development of the general management plan, but ultimately it was all for show as the National Park Service ignored all of the concerns raised during this process by the its own fisheries working group, not to mention the broader recreational fishing community and the FWC, and forced through its predetermined marine reserve anyway.
I applaud Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Carlos Curbelo and Mario Diaz-Balart for their legislative leadership to ensure that the state has a say in important fisheries management decisions. Rather than catering to special interests like the National Parks Conservation Association, these legislators are listening to their constituents and working to ensure that the public isn’t unnecessarily locked out of public waters.
Comments
This theme of predetermined outcome is becoming all to common. And unfortunately, it is not limited to our parks.
A well written opinion piece in my view. I am just not informed enough on the issue to comment except to say I think the protection is probably a good idea. I do agree that predetermined outcomes in planning efforts are counterproductive. I have witnessed this before and it leads to a lack of creditability on the agency's part. Often times it is inexperience on the lead presenters part, in any case, the best science and information are available, i hope that is the case here.
We certainly appreciate the perspective that Mr. Liederman brings to the issue, but there are some lingering questions...
* Does the state of Florida and Mr. Liederman agree with the Park Service that the area in question is struggling from a fisheries/coral reef health point of view?
* What benefit would the NPS realize if the marine reserve zone proposal was not biologically sound? Why 15 years of effort if the science didn't support it? Are the scientists they used and relied on incompetent or driven to justify an end?
* If the area covered by the proposed zone is "insignificant" from a biological perspective, then why would establishment of the zone deter fishing participation? it would cover 6 percent of a park in which 95 percent is under water. Is this 6 percent more significant from a fishing point of view than the other 89 percent?
* Why would the proposed zone, which would still allow snorkeling, scuba diving, and glass-bottom boats, "prevent the public from enjoying some of the most popular and productive areas of the park..."?
* And if the proposed zone is insignificant, would a larger zone be more beneficial to the goal of restoring the fishery?
Tough questions, with many points of view.
For some additional background, in 2008 the non-profit Ocean Conserancy issued a report that said the Park Service's overly permissive recreational and fishing policies had brought the park's unique coral reefs to a state of "imminent" collapse.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/07/study-claims-national-park-...
* What does the Conservancy think of the park's preferred approach?
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 stressed this: "The establishment of a marine reserve is the best, most effective method for protecting Biscayne's severely threatened coral reef ecosystem."
* In 2012 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service issued its biological opinion on the park's plan at that point. It said the marine reserve zone would result in a reduction of fishing gear near threatened elkhorn and staghorn corals, and so less disturbance of those corals.
* Third-party scientific studies cited by the Park Service pointed to heavily overfished fisheries in the park.
Ron--Well-written, but completely one sided. Even when I worked in the Everglades in the 80's, the marine resources of Biscayne were in decline. It is easy to say that the outcomes of planning processes are ":pre-determined" if the results of the process recommend actions with which you do not agree. That's what is going on here.
Thank you Kurt for the sources and thank you Rick, this needs to be protected.
" if the results of the process recommend actions with which you do not agree. "
Rick, there are many times that the process has recommended actions with which I don't agree but the process has been fair. In other cases, it is clear the process is just for show. I don't know whether that was true in this case. However, there have been far too many examples of people intimate with the process making the claim and I certainly have been witness to times it has happened (though not necessarily with the Parks.)
From my perspective, it appears that Carl Liederman is writing about fish (snook, tarpon, bonefish), and MPAs to maximize sustainable catch, while at least from the NOAA SE Fisheries center perspective, the MPA is more designed to protect the corals that can be damaged by fishing.
MPAs have some advantages versus stronger size limits, including reducing losses to bycatch and retarding rapid evolution of slower growth rates & earlier reproduction (and thus smaller average sizes) in fish. However, they are not simple to get right, and "right" in terms of sizes and locations for one species isn't necessarily right for other species.
I haven't kept up with the S. Florida nearshore management and MPAs since I headed back west, so I'm not going to wade into any specifics of this fight. But the first place to start is to look at the set of resources they are trying to conserve for the enjoyment of future generations.
Exactly correct, Ec!