Florida's senators have mounted an effort to block creation of a no-fishing marine reserve in Biscayne National Park/NPS
A congressional effort has been launched to block a plan by Biscayne National Park officials to set aside 6 percent of the park for a marine reserve in a bid to restore and protect a stretch of the only tropical coral reef system in the continental United States, and the boating and fishing industry has quickly jumped on board in support of the legislation.
It was a year ago that the park approved its general management plan, which calls for a no-fishing marine reserve zone of 10,502 acres to improve the declining reef's condition. Of the few hundred species that inhabit the park's waters, 150 have faced population pressures from recreational and commercial fishing, according to the Park Service.
"A marine reserve is one of the most effective ways for us to encourage restoration of the park's coral reef ecosystem and it received strong support from the public during development of the plan," then-Superintendent Brian Carlstrom said a year ago. "In addition to producing larger fish and more fish for snorkelers and divers to enjoy, the marine reserve is expected to have a spillover effect, improving the fishing experience outside the zone."
But the fishing and boating industry disagrees with the park's position, as does Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, who introduced legislation earlier this month to prevent the Park Service from creating the marine reserve as it has proposed. Cosponsoring the measure is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida.
Under S. 3099, before the marine reserve could be created (the Park Service has yet to go through the rule-making process to set it up), the Park Service would have to go through formal consultation and coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission of the State of Florida. Additionally, the bill calls for science produced by the state of Florida to take precedence over the science the Park Service used to justify creation of the marine reserve.
While those lining up behind the senators say the marine reserve isn't needed, back in 2001 scientists warned that the park's fisheries were facing 'imminent collapse' without immediate help and protection. Additionally, by including 2,663 acres of coral reef in the preserve, the Park Service would contribute towards the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force's goal of having 20 percent of Florida's reefs within such reserves.
During the drafting of the GMP, an open letter, co-signed by Jean-Michel Cousteau founder of the Ocean's Future Society, National Geographic Explorer- in-Residence Sylvia Earle, and Senior Scientist Emeritus Jeremy Jackson at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stated that: "The establishment of a marine reserve is the best, most effective method for protecting Biscayne's severely threatened coral reef ecosystem."
At the National Parks Conservation Association, Caroline McLaughlin, the group's Biscayne program manager, said Wednesday that the park's fisheries needed protections provided by the marine reserve to rebound.
"This bill would effectively block the creation of a desperately needed marine reserve in Biscayne National Park. The marine reserve was decided upon after 15 years of scientific analysis, interagency cooperation at the state and federal levels, and a thoughtful and transparent public process. Of the 43,000 public comments collected by the Park Service during that process, more than 90 percent were in favor of the marine reserve," she said in an email.
"Biscayne has been overfished and over-stressed for decades. Experts at the National Park Service confirmed that Biscayne’s coral reefs are dying, and that some species are on the verge of collapse. Once plentiful native fish like mangrove snapper and black grouper are at record low levels of abundance and most are too small for anglers to keep," continued Ms. McLaughlin. "In fact, recent studies show that a majority of snapper and grouper caught in the park are below state, federal, and international standards for sustainability.
"This marine reserve is the only way to protect Biscayne’s fisheries sustainably over the long-term and will help bring more fish back to Florida, increasing fish size, diversity, and abundance. With 95 percent of the national park as water, around six percent will be included in the marine reserve, a small portion of the total park."
But the marine boating industry fears the no-fishing zone would have too great an impact on Florida's fishing economy.
“Recreational fishing is a tremendous economic driver in the U.S., supporting 828,000 jobs,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “Senators Nelson and Rubio deserve tremendous credit for their leadership in tackling issues of importance to the recreational fishing community not only in Florida but throughout the country. We are extremely pleased with the action today by the Senate Commerce Committee to advance this important legislation.”
While Biscayne officials worked for more than 15 years on the general management plan, and received about 43,000 comments on the draft GMP, opponents claim the Park Service didn't fairly conduct the review and drafting of the plan.
“After attempting to work in good faith with the National Park Service for many years to find a more reasonable path forward, it’s clear that Congressional action is needed to prevent this unwarranted marine reserve from going into effect,” said Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association in a story posted Wednesday by Boating Industry magazine. “Any decision as drastic as closing public waters must be based on sound science with efforts made to minimize negative impacts to stakeholders. Thankfully, this bill will ensure a more fair and science-based process is followed.”
Some members of the Florida congressional delegation last year mounted an effort to overturn the park's plan. Their legislation would require the Park Service and Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to have approval from state fish and wildlife agencies before closing state waters to recreational or commercial fishing.
At NPCA. Ms. McLaughlin said the park advocacy group would continue to fight the efforts to weaken the park's protections.
"We will continue to strongly oppose this bill (S.3099) to make sure it doesn’t prevent the National Park Service from doing their job as caretakers of America’s national parks or block efforts to protect coral reefs and native fish in Biscayne National Park," she said.
Comments
Thank you Traveler for an interesting discussion, we maybe off topic on your blog as it is normally about parks and public lands. While off topic, I was interested in Dr Runte's post on free speech in our educational system. I have been out of the system for several years, so really have no recent experience in which to respond to his concern. I do not see this issue in my fire related duties and while working in the parks and forests. My own humble opinion is the ideology of our current economic policies where the concentration of wealth and corporate political influence, not seen since the 1820s, appears to be a bigger issue. In any case, interesting posts.
You invite an interesting point about corporations, Ron. If indeed the issue is "corporate political influence," how is it applied across the political spectrum? The direct application that most concerns me is how green energy conglomerates, for example, are using climate change to wrest control of our public lands, not to mention government loan guarantees, tax breaks, etc., that all add up to a multibillion-dollar subsidy. As just one result, we hear now that animal species are more important than individual animals, which we may need to kill in order to save the species. Huh? Only if we reduce climate change, the argument goes, will the species itself survive. Ensuring that, it may be "necessary" to kill a few thousand eagles in wind turbines, for example. As temperatures come down, more eagles will survive--and the species will be saved. The thousands that die in the interim are the necessary sacrifice we must make.
Is that science? No, it is the incredible logic you get when you allow a term like climate change to become a shortcut for critical thinking.
You're right. Corporations have done an excellent job of exploiting that absence of critical thinking. The point is: Who gave them the opportunity? Who is the censor when someone points out that eagles are doing just fine in an (allegedly) warming environment? Fine now, the censor says, but just wait until it gets warmer! We can't take that chance. We have to kill eagles now. How do we know we're right? We just do. We polled one another and agreed. The only way to save the planet is to remake it and trust that we are right.
This thread started with the obsevation that "paid" scientists find it difficult to remain objective. No one should wonder why.
I see no problem with "concentration of wealth" as long as it rises all boats. Unfortunately the entitlement mentality has widened the income disperity rather than narrowed it. As to corporate influence, the corporations don't have a single vote. The people get what they vote for.
I have to agree with our Esteemed Comrade. He is completely correct when he talks about the entitlement mentality of our corporations and wealthy individuals. And while corporations don't vote directly for legislators, they certainly do vote with campaign dollars and other contributions. Those people sure do get what they vote for -- or manage to purchase.
And Dr. Runte, with all due respect, corporate welfare and subsidies are rampant on all sides. That will continue until our law makers are no longer beholden to financial powers.
Well Lee I see we have crickets on your accusation. I guess we can rack that up to another of your baseless accusations.
As to buying votes, I have never received a penny for mine? Are you taking bribes for yours? I doubt it. Its the people that vote not corporations. And of course, I never talked of an entitlement mentality of corporations and wealthy individuals. The only things they asked to be entitled to is what they have earned. Neither corporations or wealthy individuals have gotten a single dollar from you that you haven't given willingly. Only the government can force you to pay for something you don't want.
I don't know, EC. I never "voted" to give General Electric, et al. carte blanche over my public lands. As you argue, "the only things" wealthy individuals and corporations are "entitled to is what they have earned." How did they "earn" that right? The truth is: They didn't earn it; President Obama gave it to them, along with Interior Secretaries Salazar and Jewell. They did it under their authority as our elected and/or appointed officials. But the general public never got a say. They got my "dollar," as you put it, by lobbying Congress and the President. They saw the power in their dollars and made it work for them.
I believe that what Lee is referring to is the abuse of that process in Washington. What I am referring to is how "forgiving" Democrats are when the process works for them--and how uncritical they are when a Democratic president is the one behind these generous giveaways. So long as it is President Obama, the scientific method goes out the window and the 97 percent rule is invoked. The point is: We are not polled; we are not asked. We are rather told to accept the result.
You're right about those crickets. Then how about another term? How about desert tortoises? How about eagles? How about the life we are snuffing out to make green energy work?
Other than predictions that all of the snuffing out is necessary, I don't see a lick of science. So yes, I happen to agree with Lee on one point. That is corporate power--and government initiative--run amok.
Back to Biscayne Bay. In management good science matters, but now we understand the problem. Government scientists are no more "independent" than university scientists when they are told to walk the line. If it weren't for government grants, half of my university neighbors would be out of work. So you had better believe they walk the line.
You say: "Only the government can force you to pay for something you don't want." Better said, the system will make you pay if you don't walk the line.
Happy Fourth!
Alfred, you may not have voted for Obama and his co-conspirators but more people did than voted for the other guy. The result is not the fault of GE or any other corporation, its the fault of those that voted these globalists, entitlement driven, we know what good for you people in.
Agreed, Alfred, with a couple of corrections. It's not only Democrats. It's all of them regardless of party. It's not only the president nor current Secretary of Interior. It's all of them, regardless of party. Somehow, we have to find a way to teach voters to look beyond the propaganda spewed by both parties and learn what they are REALLY doing.
The only thing that might --- just might --- bring about change is a wholesale housecleaning in Washington and in our state capitols.
But even if anyone were to actually try to do it, those with the dollars will find a way to get their feet and fingers and fists into the door -- and into our wallets.