In the latest display of opposition to an unpopular federal directive, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tx) is calling for the Department of Interior to reconsider its Idle Iron policy that stands to dismantle critical marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico. The Idle Iron directive, issued by the Department in the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, orders non-producing oil and gas rigs and other structures in offshore waters to be removed within five years of the issuance of the directive.

“I believe this directive is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the Gulf oil spill and creates more problems than it solves,” Farenthold says in the letter to Ken Salazar, Secretary of the U.S. Interior Department. “While legislative and scientific efforts are being made to preserve these valuable habitats, rigs are being pulled up left and right, leaving no time for finding a way to salvage these ecosystems. Instead of pre-emptively removing the rigs, the Department of Interior, specifically the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, should work to quicken the approval of these rigs for artificial reefing purposes and allow for additional time to determine a safe and environmentally sound method to reef these structures in place.”

Farenthold’s letter follows a similar letter from Texas Gov. Rick Perry as well as a recent decision by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to begin an amendment to have rigs and related structures declared Essential Fish Habitat. Marine conservationists are working to generate a groundswell of opposition to the Department’s directive and save what is generally regarded as the largest artificial reef system in the world.

“We are encouraged by Congressman Farenthold’s letter and grateful that he has stepped up to oppose this destructive policy,” said Pat Murray, president of CCA National. “Anglers know how important those structures are to marine life, and the fight to keep those rigs in place as artificial reefs is a critical issue to our members.”

Click HERE to see a copy of Farenthold’s letter, and be sure to check out the CCA Rigs to Reefs page for more information.

Implicit in that statement is acknowledgement of NOAA Fisheries deep-rooted problems in federal fisheries management and a belief in the states’ ability to do it better. It is a concept that is hard to argue with if you’re a recreational angler. Consider that after decades of effort by NOAA Fisheries, participants in the red snapper fishery are being rewarded with a 40-day season (tops) and two-fish bag limit. That is about as bad as it has ever been, and that is with a fishery that by all accounts is recovering wildly. The current situation merely confirms that NOAA Fisheries may not be any better at managing success than it was at managing failure. After all, it took a couple of lawsuits and an Act of God (Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005) to finally turn the red snapper fishery around, and yet  federal managers had to make the rounds in 2012 to beg the Gulf states to be content with a 40-day season and a two-fish bag limit.

In a blog earlier this year, we said that trust in federal fisheries management was at an all-time low, which was based in part on developments exactly like this. Thirty years of federal futility have brought us to this point with red snapper, where we have state agencies grappling with a devil’s choice of staying consistent with wholly unsatisfactory federal regulations or going inconsistent and bringing on a raft of different problems. After all the time, money, effort and stress over this fishery, there is still no good answer for the states. It’s like being asked if you want to have your leg amputated or your arm.

Inconsistency creates all kinds of negatives – from enforcement to conservation, and it definitely bites charter boats and other federally permitted boats. However, states staying consistent for recreational anglers means staying on board a ship that is slowly sinking with no lifeboats in sight. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

What an awful position for the state fish and wildlife agencies to be in, through no fault of their own. One would hope that the federal government will grasp the take-home message from the states that seriously considered non-compliance this year – fix this fishery, once and for all. Come up with something that makes sense for the resource and sense for recreational anglers. Do it now – not in five more years or ten more years or twenty more years. Now.

Failing that, here’s an idea – why don’t we extend state waters out for fishery management purposes and be done with it?

In a letter to U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Florida’s bi-partisan U.S. Senators Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio urge the National Park Service to reconsider the proposed General Management Plan (GMP) for Biscayne National Park and to work cooperatively with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to maintain public access for anglers and boaters. The National Park Service signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the FWC in 2007 that specifically stated they would provide for recreational and commercial fishing opportunities for the angling public by seeking the least restrictive management actions necessary.

“But the measures proposed in the National Park Service plan represent the most extreme tools available for making fishery management modifications in Biscayne National Park, ignoring alternative ways to achieve the desired resource improvements without sacrificing the public’s ability to access and enjoy the park,” the letter to Sec. Salazar from U.S. Sens. Nelson and Rubio states.

The recently released GMP for Biscayne National Park includes a preferred alternative that would close roughly 10,500 acres of the Park’s most popular and productive shallow water reefs to recreational fishing, boating and other activities by designating these waters as a marine reserve. The most extreme alternative would close twice that much area.

On April 27, Karl “KC” Crook, a member of CCA Florida’s Dade County Chapter and owner of Crook & Crook Bait and Tackle, testified before the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands in a hearing entitled, “Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks.”

“Biscayne National Park is a regional treasure. It deserves the proper attention and controlled use to sustain and protect the natural beauty and resources contained within the Park,” Crook said. “Anglers are willing to make sacrifices for the betterment of the resource, as long as they are confident that these sacrifices are based on strong science and a true desire to improve the health of the fisheries we enjoy. However, the closures being proposed in Biscayne National Park are not based on solid fisheries management and seem to place undue blame for any and all problems in the park on anglers and boaters.”

At the same hearing, Kenneth W. Wright, vice chairman of the Florida FWC, outlined his agency’s concerns over the development of the new General Management Plan for the Park.

“The new GMP proposes alternatives for management of the Park for the next 20 or more years,” he said. “The FWC has significant concerns with the management actions that are proposed in the GMP by the NPS, but are hopeful and guardedly optimistic that these concerns can be resolved through further coordination with the National Park Service.”

A coalition of boating and angling groups, including Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportfishing Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Center for Coastal Conservation and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, has worked to find a reasonable compromise that will protect the Park’s marine resources, but not disconnect the Park from millions of America’s citizens.

“We are grateful that Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio are engaged on this effort and are seeking to have the National Park Service work cooperatively with the Florida FWC to maintain access in the park,” said Center for Coastal Conservation President Jeff Angers. “Conservationists across the country applaud them for standing up as stewards of our fisheries resources and our coastal communities.”

Click HERE to see a copy of the letter from U.S. Sens. Nelson and Rubio, HERE for a copy of Karl Crook’s testimony or HERE for Ken Wright’s testimony.

###

AUSTIN, TX – In a letter to U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Texas Governor Rick Perry is calling for a review of the federal government’s “Idle Iron” policy that threatens to dismantle what is regarded as the largest artificial reef system in the world. In the letter, Perry says that the policy, which orders non-producing oil and gas rigs and other structures in offshore waters to be removed within five years of the issuance of the directive, will have profound negative implications for marine fisheries and the local coastal communities and businesses that rely on the fishing opportunities that these structures provide in the Gulf.

“I understand the factors that may have influenced the decision to order the blanket removal of these structures in the aftermath of the tragic oil spill of 2010,” Perry states in the letter. “However, a more balanced, reasoned response is required in light of irrefutable evidence that these structures are the basis for thriving ecosystems that harbor and sustain an immense diversity of life above and below the waterline, including seabirds, fish, turtles, marine mammals and corals.”

“We are grateful to Gov. Perry for weighing in on this issue on behalf of recreational anglers, divers and everyone who cares for a vibrant marine environment,” said Pat Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association. “A more reasoned process is exactly what is needed to preserve these structures that form the basis of thriving marine ecosystems off Texas and all over the Gulf of Mexico.”

Perry’s letter is the latest effort to counter the federal government’s misguided removal policy. At its April meeting, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council moved to begin the process of classifying rigs and other vital artificial reefs as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). If artificial reefs are eventually designated as EFH, all federal agencies would then have to consult with NOAA Fisheries on federal actions that may adversely affect them. Additionally, Sen. David Vitter (R-La) and Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Ms) have filed legislation that would prevent rigs and other structures from being summarily removed from the Gulf of Mexico, and the issue continues to generate a high level of interest from other lawmakers.

“Gov. Perry has shown again that he is a true friend to Texas’ recreational anglers,” said Mark Ray, chairman of CCA Texas. “We greatly appreciate his leadership in elevating this important issue and standing up for the best interests of our fisheries and the coastal economies that depend on them.”

Click HERE to see a copy of Perry’s letter posted on the CCA Rigs to Reefs page.

###

At the April 2012 meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in Corpus Christi, NOAA Fisheries brought an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) request to the Gulf Council for review. It was submitted by the Gulf Headboat Cooperative and outlined a pilot study whereby “selected headboats” in the Gulf of Mexico will examine the feasibility of an alternative rights-based management strategy (catch shares).

The proposal would allow these few headboats in the study to fish for red snapper and gag grouper, based on allocations given to them, outside the normal recreational fishing seasons. The group selected for the study includes nine headboat owners/captains who operate 13 different vessels. The Gulf Council voted 7-6 on April 19 to endorse this Exempted Fishing Permit.

Coastal Conservation Association rejects the validity of the EFP and questions the propriety of NOAA Fisheries allowing the proposal to be presented to the Council for consideration. By promoting the EFP, NOAA Fisheries has made a farce of every requirement contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for the implementation of catch share programs. Catch share programs are not new and their methods of operation and feasibility in the commercial sector are well documented. The stated purpose of this EFP, to study the feasibility of an alternative rights-based management strategy (IFQs), is a poorly veiled excuse to avoid proper Council process and institute a highly contentious and unpopular catch share program in the recreational sector over the objections of the vast majority of stakeholders.

This incident is just the latest in a string of examples demonstrating how some groups in the environmental community are willing to disregard proper procedures, protocols and laws governing our public marine resources whenever it suits their purposes. By facilitating this proposal and presenting it to the Gulf Council, NOAA Fisheries is complicit in what appears to be an intentional circumvention of the Magnuson Stevens Act.

As a long-time participant in federal fisheries management in general and in this fishery in particular, Coastal Conservation Association urges NOAA to reject this proposal.

At the April 2012 meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in Corpus Christi, NOAA Fisheries brought an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) request to the Gulf Council for review. It was submitted by the Gulf Headboat Cooperative and outlined a pilot study whereby “selected headboats” in the Gulf of Mexico will examine the feasibility of an alternative rights-based management strategy (catch shares).

The proposal would allow these few headboats in the study to fish for red snapper and gag grouper, based on allocations given to them, outside the normal recreational fishing seasons. The group selected for the study includes nine headboat owners/captains who operate 13 different vessels. The Gulf Council voted 7-6 on April 19 to endorse this Exempted Fishing Permit.

Coastal Conservation Association rejects the validity of the EFP and questions the propriety of NOAA Fisheries allowing the proposal to be presented to the Council for consideration. By promoting the EFP, NOAA Fisheries has made a farce of every requirement contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for the implementation of catch share programs. Catch share programs are not new and their methods of operation and feasibility in the commercial sector are well documented. The stated purpose of this EFP, to study the feasibility of an alternative rights-based management strategy (IFQs), is a poorly veiled excuse to avoid proper Council process and institute a highly contentious and unpopular catch share program in the recreational sector over the objections of the vast majority of stakeholders.

This incident is just the latest in a string of examples demonstrating the environmental community’s willingness to disregard proper procedures, protocols and laws governing our public marine resources whenever it suits their purposes. By facilitating this proposal and presenting it to the Gulf Council, NOAA Fisheries is complicit in what appears to be an intentional circumvention of the Magnuson Stevens Act.

As a long-time participant in federal fisheries management in general and in this fishery in particular, Coastal Conservation Association urges NOAA to reject this proposal.

NOAA and the New England Fishery Management Council, which includes state officials and fishermen, worked with the fishing industry to identify flexibility within federal fisheries law that could both protect cod and provide sustained fishing opportunities. As a result, the quota for 2012 will be set at 6,700 metric tons, which is within the range recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council. Without this collaborative approach, the catch limit for this fishing year would have been set below 1,500 metric tons. This is the end result of collaborative work with the fishing industry to find a solution that prevented a much larger cut to the allowable catch for the 2012 fishing year.

The condensed version of the back story to this amazing turn of events includes an assessment in 2006 that showed Gulf of Maine cod were on the path to recovery, and everyone was happy. In 2011, a new assessment using new techniques showed quite the opposite, shocking everyone involved in the fishery. Based on the 2011 assessment, which was peer reviewed and accepted, the stock was and is in a serious decline. The fishery was looking at massive cuts in harvest, but with NOAA’s announcement last week, it appears that some mysterious “flexibility within federal fisheries law that could both protect cod and provide sustained fishing opportunities” allowed the New England Council to “salvage” a harvest for 2012 that is more than 300% greater than it was going to be otherwise.

Cod is the main reason Congress put hard deadlines and strict fishing limits into MSA in the first place, yet there is enough “flexibility” in the existing federal law to allow the posterfish for commercial excess to endure a 300% upward adjustment in the allowed harvest in spite of a year-old assessment that indicates it is borderline collapsed. On the other hand, NOAA Fisheries says its hands are tied regarding regulations on recreational fisheries like black sea bass in the South Atlantic and red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, fisheries that are recovering so well that anglers are tripping over fish and being penalized for catching too many.

The flexibility to do what NOAA Fisheries did in New England for cod has existed since the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) was reauthorized in 2006; NOAA Fisheries has simply refused to use that flexibility. Yet they chose to be “flexible” in a fishery which by all indications is in serious trouble, and stonewalled when asked to do the same in recreational fisheries that are in much better shape.  Herein lies one of the great mysteries that has made the debates over what to do to address problems associated with MSA so frustrating. Solutions are there and can somehow be applied, even temporarily, to one of the most chronically mismanaged commercial fisheries in the entire country. But in the Gulf, where anglers have a two-snapper limit and an absurd 40-day season, all we have to work with are threats of further reductions and more draconian management measures because the stock has rebounded so wildly that we catch too many big snapper too fast.

And NOAA wonders why the recreational angling community has trust issues with federal management.

In an unfortunate over-simplification of a complicated issue, the Miami Herald recently chose to attack what it calls “fishing lobbying groups” for their opposition to proposed fishing and boating closures in Biscayne National Park. The groups that the newspaper incorrectly portrays as supporting the “do-nothing” alternative for the park’s management include the Coastal Conservation Association, the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association and the National Marine Manufacturers Association – groups that have done a significant amount of work to conserve Florida’s amazing marine resources and create a dynamic economic engine for the state. We categorically reject the notion that the Park’s visitors are “loving the Park to death” or worse, that we simply don’t care about the proper management of this great American resource.

Details are short in the editorial, and the Herald is quick to cast an unflattering light on the groups that it says “…are pressing only for the do-nothing alternative, attacking the science — the usual tactic when a particular interest confronts a proposed regulation — behind the management plan.” The Herald vaguely references the work of the Biscayne National Park Fisheries Management Plan Working Group, which, after extensive stakeholder meetings that the National Park Service coordinated several years ago, produced options widely supported by the commercial and recreational fishers, divers, scientists and representatives of environmental groups. Because it is the most draconian tool available, the group recommended against marine reserves and opted to suggest other steps to help return the Park’s ecology to a higher standard. The group chose to recommend methods that had already been used by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission very successfully in their efforts to help bring back species such as snook, redfish, and sailfish to their current sustainable levels. These recommendations included more restrictive fishing regulations for certain species, species-specific spawning closures and a mechanism to pay for improved enforcement and education of park rules and regulations. Far from “doing-nothing,” representatives of our groups engaged extensively in the process that was portrayed as the appropriate channel for input and reached consensus on thoughtful and reasonable management tools.

When the Park Service summarily ignored the options developed by the stakeholder working group, it severed trust with the fishing and boating community, and invited a more vigorous debate. In the interest of pursuing transparency, South Florida Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart and David Rivera are seeking a congressional hearing into what appears to be an autocratic display of power by the Park Service and concerns raised from an outcry of their own south Florida constituents—the very people whose access and enjoyment is threatened by the Park’s actions. The Herald admonishes these elected officials not to “bully the National Park Service into capitulation.” These elected officials rather, are attempting to shed light on the process and do exactly what our democratic government requires—effectuate the voices of their constituents.

The Park’s Service’s action with respect to Biscayne National Park, fly in the face of the Obama Administration’s efforts through the America’s Great Outdoors program, to increase public access to outdoor opportunities with an emphasis on getting kids in urban environments outside and active, and calls for improved partnerships between the federal government and state and local agencies. Biscayne National Park is situated to be the crown jewel in the program, with its close proximity to Miami, and one of the largest urban recreational fishing and boating areas. But, rather than capitalize on this amazing opportunity, park officials have ignored compromise management practices and are instead proposing extreme measures that will throw that opportunity away.

Rather than considering the input of stakeholders and the state agency that has decades of proven expertise in fisheries management, the Park Service appears to have decided that it knows best, and that allows it to ignore the public in the pursuit of its own notions of sound conservation. While the Herald laments that “surely there is room for compromise” in this debate, it ignores the fact that it is the National Park Service that has completely shut the public out of this process. Our community welcomes meaningful debate and discussion from the Park Service, but we will not stand idly by as they circumvent years of stakeholder management discussion and threaten significant boating and fishing closures in the largest marine park in the nation.

Jeff Angers
President
Center for Coastal Conservation

Jeff Crane
President
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

Thom Dammrich
President
National Marine Manufacturers Association

Pat Murray
President
Coastal Conservation Association

Mike Nussman
President
American Sportfishing Association

SAVANNAH, GA – A request by a commercial fishing group for a “voluntary” catch share program in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery raised hackles at the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council meeting this week. Aside from concerns about the legality of the concept and outrage over the details of the proposal, recreational anglers are questioning why the Council continues to explore catch share programs a year after it voted to terminate all work related to catch share development.

“Labeling it ‘voluntary’ violates even their own definition of catch shares, so what you are left to assume is that this is nothing more than an attempt by catch share proponents to circumvent the will of the Council and keep these unwanted programs in the discussion,” said Chester Brewer, chairman of Coastal Conservation Association’s Government Relations Committee. “Beyond that, the details of this particular proposal should offend everyone, whether they fish or not.”

The South Atlantic Fisherman’s Association (SAFA) made a presentation to the Council’s Catch Shares Committee on a Voluntary Individual Fishing Quota Program for several species in the snapper grouper complex, quite possibly the worst candidate for such a program. This mixed-species fishery has substantial recreational landings and 600-plus permitted commercial fishermen, yet only about 50 fishermen have signed up for the program. In contrast, catch share proponents have tried for years to implement a program in the golden crab fishery, which is purely commercial with roughly half a dozen commercial boats involved, and have not been successful.

Making the proposal even more inappropriate, SAFA’s presentation included a request for the Council to conduct an analysis to determine which of the current regulations, including conservation measures such as size limits, trip limits, area closures and spawning season closures, could be reduced or eliminated for the “voluntary” catch share program. SAFA also asked that the federal government purchase the vessel monitoring system required of commercial vessels and pay for the installation on boats involved in the program.

“Apparently, it is not enough that proponents of catch shares want to hand these commercial fishermen a windfall, but they also want them to be exempted from the conservation measures in place for these species and make the rest of us pay for their equipment, too,” said Brewer. “Exactly what is the benefit of a program like that and why does it merit a presentation to this Council?”

Incredibly, the Catch Share Committee voted 4-4 on a motion to start an amendment to institute the “voluntary” catch share program. The chairman of the committee ultimately voted against it so the motion failed, but the committee did approve a motion to do an analysis of the “voluntary” catch share program.

“It is unbelievable and frightening that such a proposal came to life and was within one vote of passing that committee,” said Brewer. “It was just a year ago that the Council voted to dismiss these programs and yet here is one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen somehow being kept alive in this forum. We urge the Council to reject this proposal outright and stand by its vote to terminate any work that seeks to subsidize the most destructive and unprofitable sectors of our fisheries.”

###

A motion made at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council February meeting in Mobile, Alabama, could be the first step to protecting what has been regarded as the largest man-made reef in the world – the vast forest of energy-related structures in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Dr. Bob Shipp’s request to have Council staff clarify the definition of what qualifies as artificial structure could pave the way for rigs and other vital reefs to be classified as Essential Fish Habitat.

“For anglers who have been greatly concerned about the impact of this Administration’s directive to summarily remove all non-producing energy structures, this is a very welcome development,” said Pat Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association. “This is a chance for the Gulf Council and NOAA Fisheries to take a stand to protect that habitat, and we are grateful to Dr. Shipp for presenting this opportunity.”

In a misdirected response to the Gulf oil spill, the U.S. Department of Interior issued a directive in October of 2010 ordering that all non-producing rigs be plugged and any remaining structure removed within five years of the issuance of that directive. There are approximately 3,500 offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico and the directive, known as the Idle Iron Policy, would immediately impact roughly 650 structures that have not produced oil or gas within five years of the directive issue date of Oct. 15, 2010.

“Anglers have already noted with alarm the disappearance of some rigs that have been in place for years – sometimes decades – that provided the base for flourishing ecosystems,” said Murray. “It is a completely avoidable tragedy, and we hope that the Council and NOAA Fisheries will do what it can to halt this needless destruction.”

Sen. David Vitter (R-La) and Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Ms) have filed legislation that would prevent rigs and other structures from being summarily removed from the Gulf of Mexico, but both bills face a difficult road through the current Congress. A decision by NOAA Fisheries to declare artificial structures Essential Fish Habitat would be a significant addition to legislative efforts.

In 2009, Dr. Shipp and Stephen Bortone published a paper on the importance of artificial habitat on the management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico which credits the deployment of energy structures in the mid-20^th century for greatly increasing the harvest potential of red snapper.

“If the habitat limitation hypothesis is correct, and I believe it is, then it would be necessary to maintain or even increase the amount of artificial habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico to keep pace with fishing pressure,” said Dr. Shipp. “Taking it out makes no sense whatsoever.”

To learn more about this issue, visit the Rigs to Reefs page on the CCA website, www.JoinCCA.org.

###

CCA is the largest marine resource conservation group of its kind in the nation. With almost 100,000 members in 17 state chapters, CCA has been active in state, national and international fisheries management issues since 1977. For more information visit the CCA Newsroom at www.JoinCCA.org.