AS SEEN IN THE SEPT/OCT 2006 ISSUE

They may sound promising and harmless, but no-fishing zones represent the greatest single threat to the future of recreational fishing.

An insidious water-grab is taking place that involves the takeover of marine waters formerly open to the public. Labeled as “marine sanctuaries” and other seemingly harmless terms, these virtual no-fishing zones popping up along our coastlines are placed under strict government control under the pretense of conservation.

By default, the zones ban access to those who oppose them and allow full access to those who don't, and the public isn’t even allowed to vote on the matter.

Hard to believe, you say? Read on and you’ll recognize that, indeed, the push to place our marine waters under federal control is real and is not a wacky conspiracy theory.

It all began in earnest about 20 years ago when the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) became inspired by other countries expanding territorial control beyond their shorelines. Starting with just one or two small zones, these foreign nations – simply by virtue of governmental decree – directed their fisheries departments to take over more and more surrounding marine waters. In a matter of years, chunks of their entire coastlines fell under tight government scrutiny, and became off-limits to fishing.

The scheme is surprisingly transparent: Proclaim there’s a huge problem, and bring forward the solution. No-fishing zones can be justified by producing favorable studies from abroad and via NOAA’s own paid researchers. The politics involves forming political alliances with dive organizations, grant-seekers, and anti-fishing groups. In short order, the zones can gain surprising momentum in an unsuspecting public eye that loves the concept of “sanctuaries” for birds but generally feels complacent about the fate of fishermen pursuing slimy fish.

Following this tack, NOAA – through its National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – turned loose a PR barrage around 1990 extolling claims of wondrous success with zones in other parts of the world. Citing examples of studies showing more and bigger fish, the promises tantalized us all. Let’s do this in the U.S, NMFS researchers crowed, and we’ll also have more fish, fewer fishing regulations, and all user groups will get along better. It was even claimed that in some countries like New Zealand, anglers came to love no-fishing zones and clamored for more.

But the statue had clay feet. Eventually these wondrous stories and convincing studies from all points of the globe came under scrutiny. Instead of corroborating such fantastic claims, a far different picture began emerging. In almost every instance, it was found that zones were sited off countries with virtually no history of fisheries management or enforcement. Size and bag limits did not exist, indiscriminate netting took place and fish traps choked the waters. In one area off the Philippines, reef dynamiting was even used by commercial interests to get at fish. Zones were established in pockets around such countries, and when studies later revealed more fish than before in the protected areas, this “proved” that the concept works ... and correspondingly will do likewise in U.S. waters.

As to anglers in New Zealand coming to love zones, that was also totally false. Editors of New Zealand fishing magazines – people who would know something about the pulse of recreational angling in their country – wrote that the only true beneficiaries of no-fishing zones were not anglers but instead were divers, who now hogged choice reefs for themselves.

Quite obviously, the comparisons were not at all relevant to U.S. coastlines, which have layers of state and federal management regimes mostly funded by fees and taxes from the recreational sector. The Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), in particular, enjoys a reputation regarded by many – including myself – as exercising very effective fisheries management. With an efficient staff and roster of commissioners, the FWC keeps close scrutiny over the state’s marine resources, and it isn’t a bit hesitant to enact needed regulations. Add to the myriad of fishing restrictions the growing catch-and-release ethic that’s nonexistent in most other regions of the world, and it adds up to making a positive difference in Florida’s fisheries resources – none of which has had anything to do with zoning. Yes, more still needs to be done, and anglers will continue to make such sacrifices when justified.

Politics, Not Conservation

As said, NOAA has achieved astonishing momentum in taking over more and more of our reefs and coastlines. They’ve successfully gathered and attracted a coalition of diving-industry interests, grant-seekers, and NOAA-employed/NOAA-funded marine researchers. After hearing NOAA’s slick PowerPoint presentations and polished rhetoric, many people walk away convinced that angling is the disease and no-fishing zones are the cure. 

A favorite analogy used in public forums involves equating parks on land to water parks. We’ve historically had a successful park system, they say, so it should apply as well to the marine environment. But it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. In a land-based park as opposed to a marine environment, it's simpler to take censuses of the animals, to closely monitor ecosystems, to regulate who goes in and out. Also, on land, you have property rights to consider, and – unlike fishing rods – hunting rifles can kill people. People live on land, but no one lives in the water, so restricting park access is logical. And, of course, the final irony: All land parks in the U.S. allow fishing.

Since NOAA will not make the same mistake it did in 1994, when a referendum was allowed on the ballot in the Florida Keys that included asking citizens if they even wanted a sanctuary in the Keys (voters said “no” by a 55 to 45 percent margin), public hearings are instead conducted. But in reality, such hearings don’t result in much serious listening. Also, “advisory councils” supposedly made up of local user groups are carefully chosen and packed so they vote in favor of whatever NOAA wants.

Sadly, some well-meaning recreational anglers get chosen to sit on councils because NOAA already knows they’ve bought into the no-fishing zone propaganda or are too weak-minded to perceive opposing arguments. Such dupes naively think their invitations to sit on still more councils indicate NOAA is impressed with their acumen. Instead, they’re emplaced to vote along with representatives from the dive industry, grant-seeking groups, and paid NOAA advocates, all echoing their benefactor’s mantras and marching orders. The councils’ unanimous votes in favor of no-fishing zones then become heralded as proof of total buy-in, but such chicanery only fools the naive.

Another sucker argument often whispered in the hallways to advisory council members: If you don’t go along with just one zone in a proposed management plan, the government will push for a bunch of them instead. The patsy is thus duped into believing he’s “saving” the interests of recreational fishing by agreeing to establish just one. I’ve actually heard one such council member supposedly representing recreational interests tell me this. It’s one thing to be susceptible to a little finesse, but when such a ploy like that hits you over the head with a two-by-four, you ought to wise up. Either such council members aren’t too perceptive or they’re too weak to swim against the tide – but NOAA doesn’t care which, as long as he or she votes the right way.

While NOAA employs a variety of carrot-and-stick arguments, the most notable goes like this: If a zone doesn’t seem to be working in five years, we’ll remove it. Please show me such a no-fishing zone anywhere voluntarily removed because it “didn’t work.” Maybe it’s gone because it lost funding, but never because the overseers declared it wasn’t worth keeping, and they’ll look for another job. A perfect example is the oldest official no-fishing zone in the United States – the Oculina Bank Reserve in federal waters off Fort Pierce, Florida. By all accounts it’s been a dismal failure, which is why you’ve probably never heard of it. So what has been the government's solution? Make it bigger.
 
No tactic of persuasion works better than the ultimate aphrodisiac: money. NOAA dishes out millions in grants each year relating to reserves, preserves, and the like, and it doesn’t go to groups against no-fishing zones. Get the picture? And yet somehow it’s viewed as perfectly acceptable for those sitting on advisory councils to vote for more and bigger zones, and then to turn around and request research grants to study them. It’s the kind of objectivity tantamount to a company conducting its own financial audit, a judge ruling on a case involving a friend or a commissioner voting to hire his brother-in-law’s consulting company.

While politics can make strange bedfellows, some advocates of no-fishing zones remain tough to comprehend. All the environmental organizations except one supported the efforts of recreational fishing groups to overwhelmingly pass Florida’s net-ban amendment 10 years ago. The commercial plundering of the state’s fisheries resources had to be stopped. But one such environmental group actually refused to take any position on the controversial issue, yet they have no such qualms casting votes on advisory councils in favor of as many no-fishing zones as possible in as many places as possible and as soon as possible. Go figure.
Shaky Science

So what about the studies and theories that “prove” the zones work? Let’s look at a few examples.

A two-year study in the early 1980s took place at Looe Key Reef off the lower Florida Keys that banned spearfishing activities (but not hook-and-line fishing). After the completion of the study, the press releases boasted that not only did snappers increase by 93 percent, there was a miraculous 439-percent increase in the grunt population. Wow, pretty impressive, huh? Well, wait. A further examination of the raw data by yours truly turned up that, in reality, there were 9,968 grunts counted before protection and only 7,116 after protection. So how can such a huge increase in grunts be announced when there was actually a decline of nearly 3,000? Simple: The published study revealed that researchers conveniently excluded four species of grunts from the results, two of which contained the overwhelming numbers present before the study.

           Almost as interesting was the inference – unmentioned in the study – that if all
           that’s needed to increase fish stocks is to ban spearfishing, why not allow hook-
           and-line fishing to continue, and avoid all this no-fishing zone controversy?
           It’s because NOAA wants more authority over our coastlines.

A NOAA poll taken in four South Florida counties several years ago stated that 76 percent of reef anglers favor banning fishermen from no-fishing zones. If that isn’t illogical enough on the face of it, the poll said that reef anglers in the Florida Keys also want more areas placed off-limits to them. When pressed for details on the poll, it turned out that the opinions of divers who sometimes fish reefs were included. As to just reef anglers alone who were polled in the Keys, the study suggests most of them still favor being excluded from zones – and don’t forget, they hope to be kicked off still more reefs. Perhaps the fact that the sample size totaled only 88 respondents (who undoubtedly knew it was a NOAA-sponsored poll) suggests a less-than-convincing reflection of the true opinions of most Florida Keys anglers who fish the reefs. The same NOAA research group is about to embark on a similar polling study in the region. Any bets that it will show even greater support than ever before for no-fishing zones?

Researchers at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography closely examined the San Diego-La Jolla Ecological Reserve off southern California and tracked the abundance of species in the reserve since its inception in 1971. They found that despite long-term protection, most species of fish in the reserve actually decreased.
Spillover – the notion that an abundance of fish in a reserve will move out to replenish outlying areas – is a nice theory. But researcher Robert Rowley of New Zealand wrote that, “Spillover from a reserve will probably not demonstrably increase catches other than very near the reserve boundaries.”

In fact, the opposite of spillover – spill in – may be true. For years, advocates of no-fishing zones circulated a well-publicized study claiming that portions of the Indian River Lagoon near the Kennedy Space Center kept off-limits due to security concerns proved spillover success. However, a 10-year study by the Florida FWC found that more of the tagged fish in their study moved from areas open to fishing into the protected zone than vice versa. 

Also, well-established laws of nature – carrying capacity and territoriality – contradict the spillover notion that seemingly unlimited numbers of species will be born and bred in a no-fishing zone, and will be receptive to leaving their natal territory. Carrying capacity dictates that an area can only remain a viable habitat if it hosts a limited number of predators and prey; when there is an overflow of animals on land, higher hunting limits often draw down the population size to a safer amount. And the only game that leaves their territory are generally the weakest animals forced out, not the strongest.

Larval transport, another supposed benefit of no-fishing zones, is based on eggs in a zone being carried by currents to blossom forth as adult fish elsewhere. This totally unproven theory was put forward when the Keys zones were being pushed, and yet the studies (Lee, et al) used to substantiate this probability were performed in depths far greater than the deepest portions of the zones. Well-known reserve proponents Roberts and Polunin reported in a study that despite intensive research, the larval dispersal stage remains “ ...a virtual black box.”

            Also, if reserve proponents are correct that huge volumes of fish will be found in
            zones, wouldn’t they eat up all of the eggs before they got very far?

            I read where a NOAA propagandist said that anglers should support no-fishing
            zones because studies seem to indicate that lobster eggs may be nurturing outlying
            areas in the Keys. Even if true, it’s not a particularly convincing argument to
            anglers, since they don’t catch lobster with fishing rods.
            
Incredibly, the first public draft of the management plan for the Keys sanctuary included a provision for a zone at Carysfort Reef off upper Key Largo that banned all forms of fishing but allowed commercial lobster trapping. Not surprisingly, the embarrassingly stupid proposal quickly disappeared from the next draft, and inevitably that zone wasn’t even implemented. But the fact it was included at all as a political sop to commercial fishermen reveals the contemptuous political level that NOAA will stoop at the expense of real conservation.

But what of the volumes of favorable NOAA studies? Commonly conducted by those with a bias supporting no-fishing zones, they consistently justify existing zones so they’ll be perpetuated and add credence so more can be sited. To convince the reader that such studies are objective, most undergo a “peer review” by other researchers. However, take a glance at the peer lists and in most cases you’ll notice the same names popping up over and over. This basically renders such peer approval as rubber-stamped quid pro quos (“you review mine, I’ll review yours”). Considering all these shenanigans, it’s a wonder anyone questions why most of these “studies” are met with cynicism.

The Diving Hypocrisy

Why do I usually refer to “no-fishing zones” instead of using one of NOAA’s pet expressions? Because you can dive in the zones, boat in them, ride jet skis and water skis, play Frisbee and frolic in the surf of a zone, but by golly, it’s against the law to even quietly pole a skiff and catch and release a bonefish in them. Yes, some zones allow trolling through them or catching baitfish, but in essence, traditional fishing is forbidden.

Remember the claim that no-fishing zones would foster fewer disputes between user groups? That’s proved to be exactly the opposite. Divers – especially for-profit dive operators – want more zones because they offer unfettered access to reefs for their customers. Yet I have numerous studies conducted worldwide (by proponents of reserves and divers) that prove diving activities adversely impact reefs. Just do an Internet search on “diving impacts” and “diver damage” and see what turns up.

If about 1.6 million divers visit the Keys each year (a previous NOAA estimate), where do you think they all congregate? At least anglers in that region spread out on the flats, Florida Bay, channels, Gulf Stream, etc. Yet well over a million mostly inexperienced divers each year glom onto the very resources supposedly meant to be free of human disturbances. They kick up sediments onto corals with their flippers, accidentally and on purpose touch corals and sea plants/sea shells, bias fish behavior with their constant presence and feedings, take home "souvenirs" even when told not to, and if you believe all those dive boats only tie up to anchor buoys or drop in the sand, you’re into tooth fairies. That’s why divers like to call reef areas off-limits to fishing “no-take zones,” but they just don’t get it that extraction is only one part of the protection equation.
Some might argue that fishing causes more impact than diving. But it’s a false discussion. It’s not a matter of which group causes the most damage because fishing isn’t allowed in most zones. What does matter is that divers – whose significant impacts to the resources have been documented beyond any doubt – are given complete access to almost all of the 29 (and counting) “protected” areas off Florida. While many divers have been good stewards of the resources, their track record includes more than a few blemishes. Just in the Florida Keys, who wiped out all the queen conchs? Who removes massive numbers of lobster each year? Who’s slurp-gunned tropical fish off our reefs? Who’s removed huge expanses of sponges? Who used bang sticks and power-heads on hundreds of 300-pound-plus goliath grouper? Yet many of these same people speak of "protecting" the reefs while absolutely refusing the notion of equal sacrifice by also staying out of zone areas. That hypocrisy only goes to show that they are not about what’s best for the reefs but instead about having unfettered access to areas that ban fishing boats.

Meanwhile, anglers who might otherwise willingly traverse or go around a "protected area" instead see a congregation of dive boats anchored in it. No matter the other valid rationales for opposition to no-fishing zones, the "divers are welcome, anglers are not" scenario has resulted in a deep-seated resentment that will forever divide the fishing and diving communities. Instead of agreement on the need for equal sacrifice, illogical arguments spew forth that diving only causes "mild" impacts, or the issue is treated with indifference. For such people, it’s a totally untenable position, and the old mantra of “erring on the side of conservation when in doubt” thus becomes a total mockery.

Even a diving industry publication depicted the problem. In an article appearing in Sport Diver magazine, the author cites cases of divers trying to pet sea turtles, a diver smashing into a sea fan, and a diver grabbing a section of live coral and snapping it off (after which he grabs another piece that also snaps off). Check out this quote from the same article: “Within about 10 seconds, every diver charged the peaceful animals – at full speed – scaring the hell out of them and causing them to blanch (lose their color) as well as stop what they were doing. What’s more, the divers clustered around the animals and kicked wildly to maintain position, the result of which was to fill the water column with silt, sediment, and sand.”

If reef fish in a zone could vote, do you think they’d agree to the presence of divers? Around the time when the Keys sanctuary plan was originally unveiled, Dr. Henry Feddern said, “Fish behavior is affected by human contact. If you have tens of thousands of divers throughout the year in a so-called research area who are feeding, photographing and mingling with the sea life, then there’s no way that fish will behave normally and the habitats remain undisturbed. Any data collected will be totally biased.”
Keep in mind that it takes 50 years for coral to grow one inch. In addition, researchers Bell and Galzin demonstrated that changes of as little as two percent in the live coral cover caused statistically significant differences in the total number of fish and variety of species. I’ve been told that researchers Porter and Dustan claim a greater than 50 percent loss on a group of reefs they have studied in the Keys since the 1970s. Keys reefs and reefs everywhere are in danger all right, and millions of diving visits in zones are hardly improving the situation.
Even researchers and “greenies” have occasionally done their share of damage. In 1994, the University of Miami’s Columbus Iselin slammed into the Looe Key reefs, causing massive coral destruction and resulting in a $3.7 million fine. Greenpeace’s flagship the Rainbow Warrior II struck a coral reef in the Philippines last year during a climate change awareness campaign, its bow slicing through a reef formation measuring 1,722 square feet.

So why, then, are divers allowed in these zones while anglers are banned from them? It entails little regard for conservation and everything to do with politics. NOAA needs their votes on the advisory councils and their voices at public hearings. The numbers of divers represents a constituency far larger than environmental sympathizers or the relatively few numbers of marine researchers.

Ironically, the Florida Marine Patrol – funded by recreational fishing license fees – is charged with keeping anglers out of no fishing zones while unlimited numbers of divers (who pay no such license fee to the state) can mingle with the very resources supposedly set aside for protection. It’s little wonder why this issue of “divers in, anglers out” has caused so much derision and divisiveness.

Not Worth It
    
It's doubtful that any supposed reserve benefits are significant enough to warrant the enormous animosity this issue causes. That’s why no-fishing zones are opposed by almost all sport-fishing publications worldwide as well as the International Game Fish Association, Recreational Fishing Alliance, American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation Association, the Florida Outdoor Writers Association, the boating, tackle and marine industries, and unquestionably the overwhelming majority of the nation’s 12 million saltwater anglers.

Why, then, is there still a mad rush by some to site reserves? The root cause is NOAA’s push for more bureaucratic clout, with selfish interests and grant-seekers tugging in the same direction. The very researchers paid to obtain reserves for the government are among those performing follow-up studies on them and pushing for more. It’s an insidious water-grab, all right, and it’s time the public – not just the recreational fishing industry – realizes it.

Before all you NOAA apologists and tree-huggers start pounding out indignant letters to the editor, the more levelheaded among you might wish to know that I’m a flag-waving citizen and proud American who supports his country. It may surprise you to know that when living in the Keys from 1987 to 1994, I voted in favor of having a Florida Keys National Sanctuary in that referendum I mentioned because (despite the no-fishing zones) I do support programs to improve water quality and the health of the reefs. I’ve been a certified PADI diver for over 30 years, and few of the advocates of no-fishing zones have dived more reefs off Miami and the Keys than I have.

Moreover, my concerns about no-fishing zones, pointed as they may be, are not personal. I’m friendly and even friends with some of the leading advocates and in fact they unhesitatingly supply me with studies and data when requested – they’re not bad people, just in my opinion exercising bad judgment or lack objectivity when it comes to marine zoning. And finally, I’d be in favor of protecting areas during spawning aggregations and in other potential sites if proper criteria were met, if an objective science model existed, if follow-up studies took place in an objective manner, and if the playing field was level for all user groups. NOAA’s problem is that even if they did have a good product, they’ve done a lousy job of selling it.

If you’re the type who buys NOAA’s battle cry that "we're the government, and we're here to save you," then no-fishing zones are right up your alley. But for the preponderance of anglers and those representing their interests, these unwarranted and greatly hyped zones can, and will, be opposed. While most efforts heretofore have been fragmented and sporadic, an organized opposition is beginning to emerge. Some states are enacting laws forbidding such takeovers of marine waters and others will likely follow, because an area should never be banned from lawful public use unless all other management techniques have been adequately pursued. 

For these reasons and more, the public will rise up and revolt at the ballot boxes against this federal water grab, along with the politicians endorsing it.

Fortunately, a number of groups are actively working to protect the rights of anglers. Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, puts it succinctly: “RFA will continue to fight arbitrary marine reserves which exclude recreational fishermen from access. Marine reserves are not the solution for rebuilding fisheries – instead, better management and restrictions on non-sustainable fishing practices is the best answer.”

Want to join the fight against NOAA’s onslaught of no-fishing zones? Contact one of the following organizations actively working to oppose them:

Recreational Fishing Alliance, www.rfa.org, 609-404-1060
International Game Fish Association, www.igfa.org, 954-924-9365
Coastal Conservation Association, www.cca.org, 850-224-3474
American Sportfishing Association, www.asafishing.org, 703-519-9691

Bio
Doug Kelly, former Managing Editor of Florida Sportsman magazine and Editor of Sport Fishing magazine, is the Executive Director of the Florida Outdoor Writers Association, a group composed of nearly 200 of the state’s top outdoor communicators. He’s also served on an advisory panel on no-fishing zones for the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

---

Save and Share this Article: