To close or not to close: Is that really the question

To close or not to close: Is that really the question
Guest Column by Jason Ward

A group of 13 federal fisheries managers sit around a table, staring at a chocolate pie. They face a harsh reality: Many people want a piece, but there are only eight slices. In panic mode, they start discussing management options. They could subdivide the pie into two halves, which managers could then subdivide again into “commercial” and “recreational” groups. They could form “Individual Pie Quotas” (IPQs), so participants could individually bid for a piece of the pie.

In the end, they vote 7-6 to divide each slice in half, yielding 16 even smaller allocations. Later, as more and more people start coming to their meetings, the slices of pie keep getting smaller and smaller. In the end, the slices are so small that people don’t even take interest anymore.

Sadly, at no point did anyone discuss the possibility of baking more pies.

I jest, but still: I am always surprised by how many people fail to realize how our federal fisheries are managed. There is a simple concept at play. When you have a shared, finite resource and a continually growing demand for that resource, you either have to increase the supply to meet demand or restrict demand by continually decreasing individual allocations. If you choose to continually reduce the size of those allocations, eventually you will hit zero.

This is why I am not particularly enamored with the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council’s strategy for restoring red snapper populations, a strategy that relies primarily on cutbacks to bottom-fishing efforts and the divvying up of resource allotments.

In the end, you still only have a finite number of slices to divide. It seems to me that any fisheries management scheme that manages by allocation restriction only will collapse at some point in the future.

The only valid solution to accommodate growing demand is one that increases the supply of the resource.

With respect to management of the snapper-grouper complex, the true “bottleneck” in fish stocks is the availability of natural habitat required to sustain this type of life. Naturally occurring live bottoms make up a small fraction of coastal waters off South Carolina. The vast majority of ocean bottom is unexploited, undeveloped, sandy, flat bottom. What if we could somehow “develop” this barren sand and make it suitable to sustain rich marine resources?

Let’s face it: Even starting at “virgin levels,” we can only sustain so much demand on any given fishery. As decades go by, our human population is going to grow, and due to modern medicine and health care, individual life expectancy will continue to rise. All this translates into exponential growth in fishing effort. As this happens, limits will get smaller and smaller, seasons will get shorter and shorter, and eventually most of us will lose access to the fishery.

Should we wait for this to happen, or should we get ahead of the curve and start planting seeds now that will bear tremendous fruit tomorrow?

Consider the case of red snapper fishing off Alabama. The near-coastal water bottoms there are predominantly flat and consist mostly of sand and mud. In 1953, an artificial reef program was started through a partnership between the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources/Marine Resources Division and the Orange Beach Charter Boat Association. In 1987, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designated about 800 square miles off the coast as a specific area for the creation of artificial reefs. By 1997, the permitted reef building area totaled about 1,260 square miles.

What makes the artificial reef program in Alabama special is that for a $25 fee, individuals can obtain a permit and deploy their own “secret” reef, made up of state-inspected and approved materials, within one of the permitted reef zones. More than 20,000 reefs have been deployed since program began.

Since 1992, Alabama has claimed 35-40 percent of the recreational red snapper catch in the Gulf of Mexico! That’s pretty special, given the fact that they only host about 5 percent of the coastline in the Gulf. Furthermore, Alabama now claims to have the largest saltwater artificial reef system in the world. The state also claims a fleet of more than 140 charter boats which primarily focus on red snapper and are said to add more than $60 million dollars to local economies.

Although I am a huge fan of the artificial reef program run by the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, the project is severely constrained by funding. At current levels, funding is not adequate to keep up with the rising demand on the fishery. Furthermore, the goal of the program is to make these reefs as accessible to as many fishermen as possible. While this yields enhanced fishing opportunities and a nice boost to the local economy, the resulting heavy fishing pressure limits these reefs’ ability to act as true “fish factories.”

This is where the reef program in Alabama greatly differs. In Alabama, a significant percentage of reefs remain at undisclosed (“secret”) locations. Alabama not only gets to take advantage of the incredible economic stimulus, the fish have many more places to live, spawn and hide from fishing pressure.

The SAFMC, which manages federal waters from North Carolina through south Florida (not the Gulf), seems to be navigating through unchartered territory. Although seasonal closures seem logical to some, we don’t have much history to show that these closures are effective. As an example, the harvest of Nassau grouper in U.S. waters has been prohibited since 1991 (20 years), yet the stock has shown little sign of improvement.

Urban development is rapidly changing the coastal environment. It is entirely possible that many fish are leaving historical spawning areas as conditions change. Where do they reposition themselves? At what point do we consider creating new places for these fish to live and new opportunities for these fish to spawn?

Semi-private reef building in Alabama has a proven track record with incredible results. The latest calculations of maximum sustainable yield in the Gulf show that a full potential stock in the Gulf could yield anywhere from 11 million to 25 million pounds of red snapper annually. How are those numbers possible considering that early catches in the 19th century on “virgin stocks” reported significant population declines with only 2 million pounds of harvest annually? Some scientists feel strongly that artificial habitat in the Gulf is the reason for this unrealized potential.

Regardless of what the current fisheries debate is here in South Carolina, it’s time to get ahead of the curve. We need to seriously consider mirroring the semi-private reef building efforts in Alabama. If the people in Alabama can create a healthy bottom fishery essentially from scratch, what can we do with a head start?

We need to get our state government behind this effort and make this happen. Not only has reef-building proven to be a very effective solution for fisheries enhancement, it has also had a huge effect on Alabama’s coastal economy in the form of new businesses and retail opportunities, new jobs and new state tax revenues which we desperately need.

How can we continue to turn down a “stimulus” that won’t cost us a penny but will create thousands of jobs, generate millions of dollars in the state economy and, best of all, put our bottom-fish fishery on a sustainable course for the next hundred years?
_________________
Captain Keith Logan
Deep Sea Fishing Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
http://www.NorthMyrtleBeachFishingCharters.com
http://www.feedinfrenzycharters.com
http://www.southchathamtackle.com
http://www.BarefootFishing.net


Create an Account		Home · Forums · Photos · ReefCast · WaveCast · Bluewater Supermap · FREE SSTs · NWS Forecasts · Tide Tables · Solunar Tables · Your Account