Home Conservation Front

It has begun

Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
There is a plan on the table to cordon off 23 square miles of Biscayne Bay. All commercial fishing, except using lampara nets for ballyhoo, would be banned. Recreational fishing would be limited to special-zone permit holders, decided by lottery. Plans suggest issuing 430 permits to private anglers and 70 to sportfishing guides. Remember that this park was closed to ALL access during the government shutdown recently.

This looks to be the wave of the future of fisheries management - create Limited Access Privilege Programs for the receational sector.

Section off areas or user groups, then prohibit access unless you have a permit or tag, which, by the way, creates another revenue stream to skim even more $$ off of recreational fishermen.

God help our kids.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


New Biscayne National Park management plan gets cold reception


A new plan for managing Biscayne National Park waters north of the Florida Keys may create a new type of marine-protected area that limits recreational fishing and bans commercial fishing.

The proposal unveiled Friday by the National Park Service angered Upper Keys commercial fishermen as too extreme, and "disappointed" the National Parks Conservation Association as inadequate.

"It's crazy," said Ernie Piton, president of the Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen's Association. "They're closing so many areas, where are people going to go? They'll be on top of each other."

The park's new recommended plan is called Alternative 6, which proposes to establish a Special Recreation Zone covering 14,679 acres, or about 23 square miles. The zone would encompass the park's waters from Hawk Channel into the Atlantic, with the southern border east of Old Rhodes Key and running to Elliot Key.

All commercial fishing, except using lampara nets for ballyhoo, would be banned.

Recreational fishing would be limited to special-zone permit holders, decided by lottery. Plans suggest issuing 430 permits to private anglers and 70 to sportfishing guides.

"This new concept aims to accomplish the same objectives as the original preferred alternative while allowing limited fishing opportunities," Biscayne Superintendent Brian Carlstrom said in a prepared statement.

"Our partner agencies believe that providing some access, while prohibiting certain activities that are most damaging to the coral reef system, will enable us to simultaneously achieve our visitor experience and resource protection goals," Carlstrom said.

Biscayne staff has been working to update its 1983 management plan for more than two years. Analysts with the National Parks Conservation Association said the group prefers an earlier proposal that would create a no-take marine reserve covering about 16 square miles.

"Without a marine reserve at Biscayne, the coral reefs will continue to deteriorate and the park will fail to achieve its management objectives, jeopardizing park resources and the visitor experience," said Caroline McLaughlin, the group's Biscayne specialist.

No-take areas in the Dry Tortugas have created "significant increases in the size and abundance of once-overfished species after just five years," McLaughlin said.

Many recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen blasted the earlier Biscayne marine-reserve plan. The Coastal Conservation Association of Florida, a sport fishing advocacy group, will stake out its stand at a Saturday board meeting, board member Michael Kennedy said Tuesday.

"We are reviewing the special recreation areas and the other regulations that affect fishermen," Kennedy said. "We have some concerns that we will address with the Park Service."

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission board, which strongly opposed the original no-take area as harming recreational fishing off Miami-Dade County, will get a presentation on the new plan at the FWC's Thursday meeting in Weston.

"This application of the quota-hunt concept [for the special-use area] would be a new and novel approach to management of ecologically important marine habitats, like the portions of Florida's reef tract" inside the park, says an FWC staff report.

At least a dozen and possibly two dozen Keys lobster trappers use waters that would close under Alternative 6, Piton said. If that area closes, many Miami fishermen almost certainly would head south to Keys waters, he said.

"This would affect so many jobs, here and in Miami," Piton said. "I haven't seen anything to justify it."

Public comment on the Biscayne plan will be open through Feb. 20. Biscayne National Park's hearings on the proposal include a Dec. 11 session in Key Largo.

Replies

  • "Without a marine reserve at Biscayne, the coral reefs will continue to deteriorate and the park will fail to achieve its management objectives, jeopardizing park resources and the visitor experience," said Caroline McLaughlin, the group's Biscayne specialist.

    Read more: http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?136544-It-has-begun#ixzz2lO06jI3j

    Water quality has a lot more to do with coral and seagrass habitat than anything else, meanwhile the everglades restoration flounders under the direction of the US Army Corp of Engineers
  • MattDMattD Posts: 167 Deckhand
    I don't live down there but any time I hear "new and novel scheme" it scares the hell out of me. Another way to manage fishermen instead of fish. Maybe we can sell or lease the permits to other recreational fishermen?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
  • reel stamasreel stamas Posts: 6,153 Admiral
    What worries me most about 'lotteries' 'limited tags' & other 'well meaning' ideas is that anti-fishing groups could (& would) use the names & dollars of their millions of (non-fishing) members to 'buy up' or 'gather up' most or all of the permits/tags/etc. leaving none for those for whom they were intended...
    There should be NO Commercial Fishing for any fish species considered 'Over-fished' , 'Undergoing Overfishing' or Subject to Recreational Seasons, Limits, or Closures... Game Fish Status IS the Answer !!!
  • What worries me most about 'lotteries' 'limited tags' & other 'well meaning' ideas is that anti-fishing groups could (& would) use the names & dollars of their millions of (non-fishing) members to 'buy up' or 'gather up' most or all of the permits/tags/etc. leaving none for those for whom they were intended...

    Or worse yet, manage the stocks by ownership of the quota or permits.
    Here is how it works. Entity A buys up the shares, quota or permits, then says to the public, I will lease you a fish IF you fish this way.....

    Think about it for a minute......
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Check this out - NMFS has been paying for studies how to implement catch shares into recreational fisheries for years now.

    Here is a seminar that tells much of the story; http://www.eli.org/pdf/seminars/03.17.11dc/SeminarSummary.pdf



    You will see a big push for "cooperatives" which follow this blueprint.
  • WaterDamageWaterDamage Posts: 49 Deckhand
    Is ENP next? That would really suck. Let's face it, this is the start of marine preserves and marine spatial planning. Looks like the national parks may be the first to go.
  • Long GoneLong Gone Posts: 82 Deckhand
    "The National Park Service must listen to the voices of thousands of marine reserve supporters that have submitted comments and to those expected to advocate for resource protection and restoration at upcoming public meetings in December"
    so says Caroline McLaughlin, a conservation group's "Biscayne specialist".
  • Remember, if an entity owns the fish, they can make you fish any way they want as long as it is not in conflict with NMFS regs. Lets say they own the snook shares, they can sell with a no live bait rule, a more restrictive slot limit, where you can fish, its never ending.

    I can tell you with certainty that I have witnessed the Pew lady at HMS state clearly that we should buy our catch shares at Walmart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • WaterDamageWaterDamage Posts: 49 Deckhand
    Private, elitist ownership of the fish, under the guise of equal access for all.

    What's next, bathroom shares that you have to buy before you can use the toilet, as a water conversation measure? I can just see a froth of bundled crap derivatives sinking the major banks....
  • Private, elitist ownership of the fish, under the guise of equal access for all.

    What's next, bathroom shares that you have to buy before you can use the toilet, as a water conversation measure? I can just see a froth of bundled crap derivatives sinking the major banks....

    Remember if they do that, they could restrict you to one sheet of toilet paper!
  • Remember if they do that, they could restrict you to one sheet of toilet paper!

    Speaking of Toilet Paper....or at least what its used for, Take note of the amendment in the South Atlantic for some reef fish, Amendment 22. This is a "Tag" program basically being floated. Its interesting the background and preference actually mentions "Catch Share", and later in the options the Separation of Private and Charter anglers is highlighted. A "Lottery" would be used to determine winners and losers. The ONLY thing in here that makes any sense should this scheme come to reality, is that participants would have to hold a valid state fishing license or Federal Permit for the species to qualify. Also, mention of a use it or loose it idea is brought up, but, anyway your describe it its an IFQ or Catch Share scheme right here in the Recreational Fishery. Those that called us 'conspiracy theorist' for suggesting the endgame of those pushing Catch Shares were either mislead themselves or simply being disingenuous, OK, Lying about it. Like all of these "New and Novel" management schemes, they seek to lock in the program with the erroneous data, rather than fixing the data first, and eliminating the need for such schemes. Once they get enacted, is there any serious question as to how hard it will be to get rid of it?

    http://www.safmc.net/sites/default/files/Resource%20Library/pdf/SGAm22_Options%20Paper_082913.pdf
  • WaterDamageWaterDamage Posts: 49 Deckhand
    ACME: Absolutely. See the thread about this here in ConFron.
  • Is ENP next?

    No. We have a great superintendent in Dan Kimball, who listens , understands and acts towards maintaining public access as intended.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

    "Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Speaking of Toilet Paper....or at least what its used for, Take note of the amendment in the South Atlantic for some reef fish, Amendment 22. This is a "Tag" program basically being floated. Its interesting the background and preference actually mentions "Catch Share", and later in the options the Separation of Private and Charter anglers is highlighted. A "Lottery" would be used to determine winners and losers. The ONLY thing in here that makes any sense should this scheme come to reality, is that participants would have to hold a valid state fishing license or Federal Permit for the species to qualify. Also, mention of a use it or loose it idea is brought up, but, anyway your describe it its an IFQ or Catch Share scheme right here in the Recreational Fishery. Those that called us 'conspiracy theorist' for suggesting the endgame of those pushing Catch Shares were either mislead themselves or simply being disingenuous, OK, Lying about it. Like all of these "New and Novel" management schemes, they seek to lock in the program with the erroneous data, rather than fixing the data first, and eliminating the need for such schemes. Once they get enacted, is there any serious question as to how hard it will be to get rid of it?

    http://www.safmc.net/sites/default/files/Resource%20Library/pdf/SGAm22_Options%20Paper_082913.pdf

    A lottery system could not be attached to the south Atlantic states fishing licenses. One is not required to have a saltwater fishing license from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia or Florida to fish in the EEZ in the SAFMC jurisdiction.
  • ChuggerChugger Posts: 44 Greenhorn
    We can't trust the Fish & Wildlife commission anymore, they have lost their backbone and caved to the feds. FWC already OKed a no fishing zone in the Gulf Tortugas which has been there for years and now this screwy Biscayne park plan that in years to come will end up throwing out all but a handfull of fishermen will only fool the fools. First they will kick out commercial fishermen and then sport fishermen until it is another zone just for divers. I have supported all sorts of regulations and laws on snook, reds and all species and have been glad to do so for over 20 years and fished many partf of our state but this has gone to far. For shame. I will never fish Biscayne park again.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Digital Now Included!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

Preview This Month's Issue

Buy Digital Single Issues

Don't miss an issue.
Buy single digital issue for your phone or tablet.

Buy Single Digital Issue on the Florida Sportsman App

Other Magazines

See All Other Magazines

Special Interest Magazines

See All Special Interest Magazines

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Florida Sportsman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement

Phone Icon

Get Digital Access.

All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.

To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.

Get Digital Access

Not a Subscriber?
Subscribe Now