Say 'no' to closures
Management plan for Biscayne Bay draws anglers' ire
By David A. BrownOctober's arrival brings a time of year-end planning. Fall festivals and pumpkin carvings, Thanksgiving dinners, Christmas parties and New Year's Eve reservations — all merit consideration, as does a timely issue affecting the rights of recreational fishermen.
The National Park Service appears poised to make a very bad decision and the window of opportunity for concerned anglers to voice their opinions will soon close.
At stake is recreational fishing access to Biscayne National Park, a pristine coastal region south of Miami. For many years, bonefish, permit, tarpon, snapper and other sport fish have attracted anglers who marvel at the magnificent habitat, as well as the fish it holds. Alarming as it may seem, much of that could end if the NPS proceeds on its current course.
As part of its updated Biscayne National Park (BNP) Fishery Management Plan, the NPS has included marine reserves, which amount to no-take fishing zones.
What's amazing is that this move ignores the recommendations of a Biscayne National Park working group that included recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, divers, scientists and environmental groups. Based on sound fisheries management science, the group's recommendations did not include marine reserves.
Moreover, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) considers marine reserves as an overly restrictive tool only to be used if/when less restrictive management measures prove ineffective.
So, back to the planning thing — anglers who value their right to fish should send letters and/or emails to the offices of Florida Governor Charlie Crist, their local congressional representatives, the FWC and the NPS. A sample letter is available at KeepAmericanFishing.org.
For comments directed toward the NPS, click here. The public comment period closes Oct. 6 at 11:59 p.m., so comments must be postmarked by that date and time (Mountain Time).
Even those outside the area — and out-of-staters, for that matter — should consider this issue for two reasons: From vacationers, to businessmen attending tradeshows at the Miami Beach Convention Center, Biscayne Bay has a long tradition of entertaining visitors, as well as locals.
Also, the BNP marine reserve plan exemplifies a growing trend of management by restriction. Marine sanctuaries already limit anglers in the Florida Keys and the feds' absurd mishandling of Gulf grouper regulations has proven that recreational anglers are slipping lower and lower on the great totem pole of priority.
Many valid points, opinions and concerns factor into scenarios like that of BNP, but wholesale closure to waters in need of better management smacks of laziness — kick everyone out and that will make it easy for fish populations to flourish.
True, there is a definite cause-and-effect relationship between the number of fish at any given site and the number of anglers taking from that population. However, fish have tails and to think that every one spawned within a marine reserve will remain there is a sweeping generalization.
Where a fish is spawned and where it grows up is not necessarily the same place. Nevertheless, fish move around based primarily on food supplies, so many that grow unmolested within a protected area will expand outward into adjacent waters that allow fishing.
Now, one area cranking out lots of fish that spread elsewhere sounds good, and it's certainly not a bad thing, but that's an overly simplistic view. Nature offers no guarantees. Besides, try telling dolphins and sharks that they cannot feed on the bulging abundance of prey within a "protected" area.
In fairness, the marine life within Biscayne National Park is a public resource and those who just want to look at it and never touch it have their right to believe that way.
On the flipside, licensed saltwater anglers who adhere to fishing regulations have their rights also. Those rights include the ability to access and, at times, harvest fish. Considering how much money the latter group injects into local economies through bait/tackle, fuel, boat repair/maintenance, boat slip fees, food and lodging, their voice should not be suppressed.
Moreover, revenue from license fees helps fund the agencies tasked with managing fisheries resources, so shutting out anglers from the resources they help support is simply unacceptable.
Lastly, consider the logic of longevity. Serious fishermen — those with the skills and wherewithal to significantly impact a fishery — are generally your most ardent conservationists.
Are there bad apples who misuse the resource? Absolutely. Some fishermen take more than they should, but that's hardly representative of the overall angling community.
Bottom line: there is no better steward of a resource than those with a vested interest in its sustainability.
Editor's note: David A. Brown has a B.A. in journalism from the University of South Florida and you can see his work in Florida Sportsman, FLWOutdoors.com, Cabela's Outfitter Journal, TIDE, In-Fisherman, Louisiana Sportsman, The St. Petersburg Times and Saltwater Angler. He also ghost-wrote and published "Fish Smart — Catch More!" for Tampa's cable TV host Capt. Bill Miller (www.billmiller.com) and a couple more publishing projects will be docking soon. He operates a professional writing/marketing agency, Tight Line Communications.
