This week was my first meeting as an Advisory Panel member.
We were faced with a great deal of information, and I did the best I could to rapidly feel out where we might have common interests with other members of the AP and where we do not. Several SAFMC council members were there, including South Carolina’s 3 members, Mell Bell, Chris Conklin and Mark Brown.
Some highlights:
Special Management Zones (SMZ’s). This is a management term that’s been around since they put in regulations limiting gear types on artificial reefs. They’re known as SMZ’s. Now, the council and staff want to look at using this tool to protect natural bottom sites that are valuable to certain species’ spawning. The briefing info we were given refers to these proposed areas being closed to bottom fishing for all snapper-grouper species year-round. I raised a question about how they’re different from an MPA if the closure is year-round and not just during the spawning season(s) of the species we’re concerned about (mainly speckled hind and other “deepwater” species). Gregg Waugh, had the answer of course. “These are smaller, more targeted areas.” I expressed a lot of concern about this and how there would be public outcry, and a few of the other members said they agreed.
The crosshairs were clearly on the Georgetown Hole. They have been calling it the “devil’s hole,” however. They have high res sonar mapping of the hole itself. What I’m talking about is the actual GTH maps unique number basically. The number everybody’s got. If you run out there to this number and drop a line, you’ll catch a jack of some sort most likely. The fact is, it’s hard to actually get a line to the bottom at this spot because of how crazy the current normally is. Every now and then, the current is such where you can anchor and actually get bait to the fish on the bottom, and it’s off the chain. Very rare though.
What I did not expect was one of the AP members from SC volunteering GPS numbers, boundaries, of an area encompassing this to bec
How has the council arrived at the decision that the deep water fish in question, (kitty mitchell, snowies, yellowedge, are there any other fish I’m missing?)need to be protected. Assumption? Data? I’m not arguing here, would just like to be informed as to how this decision is made.
If there is no recreational snowy fishery, who is the council attempting to protect snowy and kitty mitchell stocks from? Commercial fisherman? Mother Nature?
Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don’t tell them where they know the fish.
Touche, they do “stock assessments”. I didn’t read the stock assessment for the kitty mitchell, but I know a bit about how they do it for red snapper. Basically what they do is take a sampling (let’s say 1000 fish). In that sampling, they pull out the ear bones and determine the distribution of ages. If you think about human beings for a second, you will look around you and notice that there are just as many 10 year olds as there are 20 year olds, 40 year olds, etc… Thus the distribution of ages is pretty consistent. Let’s say that we noticed over time, that there were less and less 50 year olds. Well, something must be killing them off. That’s the theory.
With red snapper, they found a few specimens that were 50+ years old. Then they realized that most of the fish were in that 1-5 year old range. They panick! Where are all of the 10 year olds, the 20 year olds, the 30 year old and 40 year old fish?!?!? It must be the fishermen that kill them off!!! We need to restrict fishing!!! Essentially that’s the gist of it. But here is the problem, not all fish species are the same. While that might be a perfectly okay way to look at top predator like a marlin, swordfish, goliath grouper, etc. It’s probably not the best way to look at red snapper, kitty mitchell, dolphin, etc. Does anyone expect there to be as many 4 year old 40 lb dolphin as there are peanut dolphin? No!!!
It’s these unproven, theoretical models that drive their analysis on “overfishing”. But here is the problem. They refuse to look at any historical data with an objective mind. Has there EVER been an abundance of kitty mitchell? NO!!! What did the “age distribution” of kitty mitchells look like 100 years ago? They have no clue. They just have to ASSUME that all species should have the same age distribution because of the 1 or 2 species (goliath, hogfish) that the know well…
How has the council arrived at the decision that the deep water fish in question, (kitty mitchell, snowies, yellowedge, are there any other fish I’m missing?)need to be protected. Assumption? Data? I’m not arguing here, would just like to be informed as to how this decision is made.
If there is no recreational snowy fishery, who is the council attempting to protect snowy and kitty mitchell stocks from? Commercial fisherman? Mother Nature?
Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don’t tell them where they know the fish.
More Maxims of Mark, Johnson, 1927
31’ Contender
“Touche”
250 HPDIs
National Resource Defense Council keeps suing/petitioning for speckled hind and warsaw to be added to the threatened or endangered species lists. In order to keep the then-required bottom fishing closures from being excessive (only way to give those species more protection is to eliminate all bycatch mortality chances) they are trying to create these preserves over known spawning sites.
The GTH is a prime location now because the commercial fisherman from Charleston provided the SAFMC with data on these fish caught with pre/post/spawning signs as well as video evidence of spawning behavior. They also have the high res bathymetry showing the high relief outcropping, ledges and caves warsaws associate with.
I actually favor this type of approach over the shotgun blast approach of closing a half dozen species down for 6 months out the year since they spawn at various times throughout the region over all 6 months. I think many of the AP members felt like these new spawning SMZ’s could help open the shallow water grouper species back up to year round fishing if we looked at SMZ’s for gag and scamp, etc.
I have a lot of c
Here is the kicker though… Greg Waugh\Cupka could care LESS about the stock assessments. They made up their mind nearly 20 years ago that MPA’s were the ONLY solution to manage the fishery. Their dream is that they close off some large percentage of the continental shelf (i.e. “the ledge”). Let’s be clear, if they tried that in one fail swoop (do you remember when they tried to close all bottom fishing from 98’ seaward to protect red snapper???) there would be public outrage!!!
So, how do you accomplish this life long goal? Again TWENTY YEARS of tenure at stake! You build your huge MPA brick by brick. First you close off 5 areas. Just enough to make it under the radar. They were listed as “experimental”. Note though that we haven’t seen any “experimental” data come back from them yet to justify creating new MPA’s. Next, let’s make them a tiny bit bigger… Next, let’s use the kitty mitchell as a reason to grab a few more square miles… Next, let’s use species X to grab a few more square miles. Rinse, wash, repeat. Find a new crisis, capitalize on it by closing a few more square miles. MPA’s are a slow growing cancer and it’s designed to grow slowly so that we aren’t scared enough to cut them off of our skin.
Guys, can’t you see this has NOTHING TO DO WITH KITTY MITCHELL? They are moving their chess pieces forward and CHIPPING AWAY toward their end goal. That’s it… PERIOD!!!
National Resource Defense Council keeps suing/petitioning for speckled hind and warsaw to be added to the threatened or endangered species lists. In order to keep the then-required bottom fishing closures from being excessive (only way to give those species more protection is to eliminate all bycatch mortality chances) they are trying to create these preserves over known spawning sites.
So, they presented us with a false dilemma… Basically they threatened us with even harsher restrictions if we didn’t bite on harsh restrictions…
National Resource Defense Council keeps suing/petitioning for speckled hind and warsaw to be added to the threatened or endangered species lists. In order to keep the then-required bottom fishing closures from being excessive (only way to give those species more protection is to eliminate all bycatch mortality chances) they are trying to create these preserves over known spawning sites.
So, they presented us with a false dilemma… Basically they threatened us with even harsher restrictions if we didn’t bite on harsh restrictions…
Yes. SOS…
Only, the AP membership bought into it so far that they were willing to vote for 16 square miles of our GTH be closed off unless we forced otherwise. And, like I said, we had one of our own community offering up the data and evidence and recommending that the area be closed. I see where a commercial guy is coming from by offering that up. It isn’t a big deal to someone like him or some of us who have plenty other places to fish. I still disagreed with the concession and tried to force the 1 mile cap on it. That was met with a lot of opposition along with my attempts to argue for only seasonal closures of these areas.
I could have been spiteful and fought for 80-100 square miles off Florida to be closed, but I’m looking to make more friends on the AP rather than enemies.
It’s ultimately up to the council, and the council members I talked to understand that there is no need for more protection for the warsaws and kitty mitchells unless the NRDC is ever successful in their lawsui
Here is the kicker though… Greg Waugh\Cupka could care LESS about the stock assessments. They made up their mind nearly 20 years ago that MPA’s were the ONLY solution to manage the fishery. Their dream is that they close off some large percentage of the continental shelf (i.e. “the ledge”). Let’s be clear, if they tried that in one fail swoop (do you remember when they tried to close all bottom fishing from 98’ seaward to protect red snapper???) there would be public outrage!!!
So, how do you accomplish this life long goal? Again TWENTY YEARS of tenure at stake! You build your huge MPA brick by brick. First you close off 5 areas. Just enough to make it under the radar. They were listed as “experimental”. Note though that we haven’t seen any “experimental” data come back from them yet to justify creating new MPA’s. Next, let’s make them a tiny bit bigger… Next, let’s use the kitty mitchell as a reason to grab a few more square miles… Next, let’s use species X to grab a few more square miles. Rinse, wash, repeat. Find a new crisis, capitalize on it by closing a few more square miles. MPA’s are a slow growing cancer and it’s designed to grow slowly so that we aren’t scared enough to cut them off of our skin.
Guys, can’t you see this has NOTHING TO DO WITH KITTY MITCHELL? They are moving their chess pieces forward and CHIPPING AWAY toward their end goal. That’s it… PERIOD!!!
I agree. The chain, they’re trying to create is most apparent when you look at the MPA’s off SC. I made that point to the Florida boys yesterday, and a guy from the Keys basically scoffed at me and said that almost all of his bottom are closed down. I had to hold back a lot to not just yell out, "You’ve got 50,000 people per 10 square miles pressuring it while we have 1
[quote][i]I made that point to the Florida boys yesterday, and a guy from the Keys basically scoffed at me and said that almost all of his bottom are closed down. I had to hold back a lot to not just yell out, “You’ve got 50,000 people per 10 square miles pressuring it while we have 10 people per 5,000 square miles up here!”
Therein lies the problem!!! The keys are a beast of their own. SAFMC is trying to bring keys management up here. You are exactly right about the difference.
National Resource Defense Council keeps suing/petitioning for speckled hind and warsaw to be added to the threatened or endangered species lists. In order to keep the then-required bottom fishing closures from being excessive (only way to give those species more protection is to eliminate all bycatch mortality chances) they are trying to create these preserves over known spawning sites.
So, they presented us with a false dilemma… Basically they threatened us with even harsher restrictions if we didn’t bite on harsh restrictions…
Yes. SOS…
Only, the AP membership bought into it so far that they were willing to vote for 16 square miles of our GTH be closed off unless we forced otherwise. And, like I said, we had one of our own community offering up the data and evidence and recommending that the area be closed. I see where a commercial guy is coming from by offering that up. It isn’t a big deal to someone like him or some of us who have plenty other places to fish. I still disagreed with the concession and tried to force the 1 mile cap on it. That was met with a lot of opposition along with my attempts to argue for only seasonal closures of these areas.
I could have been spiteful and fought for 80-100 square miles off Florida to be closed, but I’m looking to make more friends on the AP rather than enemies.
Phin,
Thank you for the detail summary of the meeting and I am VERY HAPPY that you, the educated rec fisherman, are now an AP member. This is clearly a long and intense battle of politics and chess. Please keep us updated and thanks again !!!
National Resource Defense Council keeps suing/petitioning for speckled hind and warsaw to be added to the threatened or endangered species lists. In order to keep the then-required bottom fishing closures from being excessive (only way to give those species more protection is to eliminate all bycatch mortality chances) they are trying to create these preserves over known spawning sites.
So, they presented us with a false dilemma… Basically they threatened us with even harsher restrictions if we didn’t bite on harsh restrictions…
Yes. SOS…
Only, the AP membership bought into it so far that they were willing to vote for 16 square miles of our GTH be closed off unless we forced otherwise. And, like I said, we had one of our own community offering up the data and evidence and recommending that the area be closed. I see where a commercial guy is coming from by offering that up. It isn’t a big deal to someone like him or some of us who have plenty other places to fish. I still disagreed with the concession and tried to force the 1 mile cap on it. That was met with a lot of opposition along with my attempts to argue for only seasonal closures of these areas.