Local Media Inflames Sanctuary Discussions

Anger and frustration exploded across the front page of a Middle Keys newspaper on Wednesday. The story reported on a meeting of the Ecosystem Protection Working Group as it presented very preliminary plans to restructure various protected zones in waters off the Keys.

Words such as “strangling” and “war” characterized the reaction of local anglers and guides to the plans being presented. According to the story no one testified in favor of greater restrictions during the lengthy session while more than 100 opponents trooped to the microphone during a very lengthy public comment session. Since commercial fishing is an important element of the Keys economy it’s important to look at both sides of the issue, something the paper’s story failed to do.

And so we have.

Key West The Newspaper [The Blue Paper] first contacted Chris Bergh, the South Florida Conservation Director for The Nature Conservancy and the chair of the committee making its presentation. Bergh took an hour on the phone to describe the process that his committee as well as the other advisory groups have taken to get where they are.

What becomes clear is that making new recommendations to the Sanctuary Advisory Council for potential changes in the boundaries of the Sanctuary in addition to new rules within those boundaries is a very lengthy, very detailed process. Bergh’s committee and the others involved made sure to involve all segments of the fishing, scientific, conservation and tourism community with months and months of discussions, public sessions, and study.

Out of that process came 105 tentative recommendations put forward by various members. None of these have yet been voted on or sent to the larger Advisory Council.

So why the big brouhaha? Bergh feels that it was only when his committee posted proposed maps and recommendations online that people really took notice.

“People are very well networked these days via the Internet, phones, and websites,” he said. “When the word got out it created a groundswell of interest.”

Clearly there was a good deal of misunderstanding of the process, including in the local media, plus a very local view of what is a regional and even global problem. Bergh feels that while water quality, the reef, and other areas of the reserve are in decline, the local fishing industry is not feeling that degradation.

Economic Considerations

Dr. Stephen Miller, an expert on coral reef ecology and sea water chemistry and a professor at Nova Southeastern University, presented to Bergh’s committee and has a very even-handed approach to the issue of creating zones where fishing might be prohibited. On the one hand he clearly understands and is sympathetic with the economic motivations that people such as the outraged anglers have.

“You can’t just say that we’re going to set areas aside because we want bigger fish. Twenty percent of the fishermen who live here and work here and have done so for generations are now out of work,” he said.

On the other hand, he also feels that it’s critically important to create areas that are off limits to fishing. In fact, that has worked very well in the current sanctuary.

“We know from work in Florida and worldwide if you set larger areas aside and protect them from fishing you end up with more fish and larger fish,” Dr. Miller said. “So the question is when you try and do things like [creating zones] what are the consequences to other user groups who won’t be able to use that resource. It’s always a trade-off.”

Getting Ahead of Themselves?

Miller feels that the mistake that the Ecosystem Protection working group may have made was, as Miller phrased it, getting ahead of themselves. The announcement that the group would make recommendations to the Sanctuary Advisory Council in August got the fishing community very riled up and the article in the paper may further inflame the opposition to any additional changes to what was created in 1997.

His analysis, however, does not mesh with the meticulous procedure that the working group went through. The constituency that testified at the raucous session entered the process very late since the committee had been at it for months with many opportunities for public input. They also misunderstood that what was posted online had not been voted on by the committee. That vote is an equally meticulous one with each of the 15 members giving each of the tentative 105 recommendations a score of 1-5. Only those that receive 75 percent of scores of three or higher get promoted to the larger Sanctuary Advisory Council.

Creating Zones Not New

Miller did comment that the concept of marking off public areas is not particularly new. This country has been doing so for nearly 150 years, establishing the national park system beginning with Yellowstone in 1872 for example. But, according to Miller, it’s still new for those used to roaming the oceans at will.

“The idea of zoning the ocean is still new and frankly the people who live and work on the ocean are real frontier types and the idea of drawing lines on the ocean runs counter to our history and culture; it’s not an easy thing to do.”

Bergh commented that local anglers may feel they bear the brunt of regulations in the Sanctuary and other areas whereas the causes of the decline in local waters are regional as a result of runoff from the sugar farms in the Everglades and global because of global warming and ocean acidification. Much of this is unregulated or poorly regulated while local regulations are more restrictive.

As Miller said in the interview the Keys are driven by a healthy environment.

“If our beaches aren’t clean, if there are no fish, if there are no coral then a lot of people aren’t going to come,” he said. “The economy is driven by a healthy environment and so what does that mean? It increasingly means in the marine realm that zoning has a role to play but how big a role? That’s up for discussion.”

Bergh says there’s plenty of discussion to come. His particular working group has now scheduled regional meetings to take additional comments in response to what occurred this week. Eventually they will vote on the 105 very tentative recommendations and pass their advice – and that’s all it is, advice – on to the Sanctuary Advisory Council that will then vote and make its own recommendations. The final changes may not come until 2015.