No more spearfishing in south Florida?

[buckled plates]

In that regard so were the closures of fishing for striped bass, etc. Yes, they work. Striped bass have recovered from near extinction and unless the same is done for bluefin and other species they may soon be gone. So, yes, closures of the sort you're speaking about work. My objection is closure to all human activity, not just spearfishing. I find the way the ban has been proposed, the limited period for comment, and the lack of evidence to support their case, the lack of a case brought before the public in newspaper essays, editorials, TV interviews, etc., and the opportunity for qualified rebuttals all as deeply suspicious.

Call me crazy, but I think there's more going on here than being projected.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Locked behind a paywall (have I mentioned how much I loathe the academic publishing industry?), but I did find this abstract from a study comparing hook-and-line fishing to spearfishing: A quantitative comparison of recreational spearfishing and linefishing on the Great Barrier Reef: implications for management of multi-sector coral reef fisheries - Springer

the abstract:


This study compared the catch composition, catch per unit effort, and incidental impacts of spearfishers and linefishers engaged in a structured fishing program whereby fishing effort was standardized across time, space and skill level. It was found that (1) the catch composition of both groups of fishers overlapped considerably, (2) the numbers of target fish caught by spearfishers (156) and linefishers (168) were not significantly different, (3) the mean size of target fish caught by spearfishers (1.95 ± 0.1 kg, ±SE) was significantly larger than the mean size of target fish caught by linefishers (1.27 ± 0.06 kg), and (4) spearfishers retained 43% more biomass of target species than did linefishers (304 versus 213 kg, respectively). However, linefishers used ∼1 kg of bait for every 3 kg of target fish that were captured. Linefishers also caught far more undersized, undesirable, or protected fishes (i.e., bycatch) and caused far more pollution (i.e., lost gear) than did spearfishers. It is concluded that the overall impacts of recreational spearfishing and linefishing on fishery resources of the Great Barrier Reef are broadly equivalent (per unit of fishing effort), and that management regulations should be applied equitably across both fishing sectors. A management strategy of this type will simplify enforcement of fisheries regulations and avoid discrimination of particular fishers in local communities where both fishing methods are socially or culturally important.

 

[Johnoly]

... Closing by gear types is a fallacy, at least as far as rec fishing goes.

I agree.

 

[pedro_rj]

To begin, the issues concerning the environmental impact of spearfishing have already been dealt with effectively by others in this thread, and I won't bother repeating them at length. In summary: a) US fisheries are highly regulated and fish stocks in general are in good health, b) spearfishermen constitute a tiny cohort of the fishing population and by their meager number (compared to other fishermen), they kill very few fish; c) as any hunter knows, targeted species rapidly adjust to hunting pressure and avoid hunters (which makes finding and killing those species ever more difficult as hunting pressure mounts). If large breeding age fish appear to be fewer in number on any given portion of reef that's hunted, rather than having been killed, it's at least as likely those fish have moved on to safer regions.

More important to everyone reading this is the clever fallacy used by the writer quoted above. It's important to recognize it for what it is because it's the same technique used by organizations like SEFRI (the organization pushing the spearfishing ban). It's the fallacy of "begging the question" or, in other words, assuming the premise is true without proof (spearfishing damages the environment). The logical, proper, and sincere way of framing the question would be for SEFRI to assert that spearfishing is environmentally unsound and then providing the proof to make their case; instead, they assert spearfishing is unsound and demand proof from spearfishermen that it isn't. Spearfishermen are thus immediately burdened with a much high hurdle of proof (having to prove a negative and that, as anyone knows, is often impossible).

Make no mistake, the public hearing period is just a pretense. The spearfishing ban, short of a massive effort to put pressure on the state and it's politicians by all the state's fishing and diving interest groups, is a done deal. Spearfishing on scuba will soon be ended in Southeast Florida (or at least severely restricted).

What's next in line for elimination by SEFRI is anyone's guess. Drift diving, maybe? Night diving? Why not. Using the fallacy above, all they need to do is assert that drift diving damages the reef, and demand that divers prove that it doesn't. Without proof, drift diving can be as easily be outlawed.

It's not about spearfishing, folks.

You're calling it a fallacy just to disqualify me, without reading what doesn't please you. You're saying I need to prove something. I've posted this before in this same thread, you can read the whole article if you want: Depth Refuge and the Impacts of SCUBA Spearfishing on Coral Reef Fishes

Abstract

In recent decades, spearfishing with SCUBA has emerged as an efficient method for targeting reef fish in deeper waters. However, deeper waters are increasingly recognised as a potential source of refuge that may help sustain fishery resources. We used a combination of historical catch data over a 20-year time period and fishery-independent surveys to investigate the effects of SCUBA spearfishing on coral reef fish populations in the southern Mariana Islands. Two jurisdictions were studied; Guam, where SCUBA spearfishing is practiced, and the nearby Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), where SCUBA spearfishing has been banned since 2003. Fishery-independent data were collected using baited remote underwater stereo-video systems (stereo-BRUVs) stratified by depth, marine protected area status and jurisdiction. Herbivores (primary consumers) dominated spearfishing catches, with parrotfish (scarines) and surgeonfish/unicornfish (acanthurids) the main groups harvested. However, the large, endangered humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) was the main species by weight landed by SCUBA spearfishers. SCUBA spearfishing was associated with declining size of scarines over time and catches shifting from a dominance of large parrotfishes to a mixed assemblage with increasing proportions of acanthurids. Comparisons between Guam and the nearby CNMI revealed differences in the assemblage of fished species and also greater size of scarines and acanthurids in deep water where SCUBA fishing is banned. These results suggest that SCUBA spearfishing impacts reef fish populations and that the restriction of this fishing method will ensure refuge for fish populations in deeper waters. We recommend a ban on SCUBA spearfishing to preserve or aid the recovery of large, functionally important coral reef species and to improve the sustainability of coral reef fisheries.

In short, two similar areas, the one with scuba spearfishing had significantly worse data. Then somebody replied it's because it's done wrong in that area. So I asked ok, and where is it being done right? Care to share the studies/data? None so far.

Then the discussion moved on to spearfishing in general. From that article there are several others that I find interesting, such as this one: Effects of Spearfishing on Reef Fish Populations in a Multi-Use Conservation Area
Abstract

Although spearfishing is a popular method of capturing fish, its ecological effects on fish populations are poorly understood, which makes it difficult to assess the legitimacy and desirability of spearfishing in multi-use marine reserves. Recent management changes within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) fortuitously created a unique scenario by which to quantify the effects of spearfishing on fish populations. As such, we employed underwater visual surveys and a before-after-control-impact experimental design to investigate the effects of spearfishing on the density and size structure of target and non-target fishes in a multi-use conservation park zone (CPZ) within the GBRMP. Three years after spearfishing was first allowed in the CPZ, there was a 54% reduction in density and a 27% reduction in mean size of coral trout (Plectropomus spp.), the primary target species. These changes were attributed to spearfishing because benthic habitat characteristics and the density of non-target fishes were stable through time, and the density and mean size of coral trout in a nearby control zone (where spearfishing was prohibited) remained unchanged. We conclude that spearfishing, like other forms of fishing, can have rapid and substantial negative effects on target fish populations. Careful management of spearfishing is therefore needed to ensure that conservation obligations are achieved and that fishery resources are harvested sustainably. This is particularly important both for the GBRMP, due to its extraordinarily high conservation value and world heritage status, and for tropical island nations where people depend on spearfishing for food and income. To minimize the effects of spearfishing on target species and to enhance protection of functionally important fishes (herbivores), we recommend that fishery managers adjust output controls such as size- and catch-limits, rather than prohibit spearfishing altogether. This will preserve the cultural and social importance of spearfishing in coastal communities where it is practised.

wookie and HD also came up with interesting stuff without the need to try to insult me. There is no hidden agenda here. Can't speak for SEFRI, whatever that is, they might have one...


@CuzzA, no, I don't buy seafood at the grocery/restaurant. So no, I'm not financially supporting the "evil commercial fishermen who are far worse than spearfishing" (or am I reading too much into an innocent question?)

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I read over that first paper from the Marianas over the weekend. The first thing that struck me about that was the most common taxa in the catches - scarids. If primary consumers like parrotfishes are the main thing you're hunting, it's a good indication you've already devastated the ecosystem, whether by spearfishing or other means. Here in FL if you came up with a stringer of parrotfish as your catch the rest of the guys on the boat might toss your gun in the drink for being a trigger-happy moron.

One of the other papers referenced in the draft RMA was one from a study in Chile (Spearfishing to depletion: evidence from temperate reef fishes in Chile - Godoy - 2010 - Ecological Applications - Wiley Online Library). Here was the kicker that attracted my attention: the note that the spearfishers (using SCUBA and surface-supply hookah rigs) had no gear restrictions, bag limits, or size limits. They could literally shoot as many fish as they wanted of whatever size they could find. What then do you think is the issue - the diving gear being used, or the complete lack of fisheries regulations? The second paper you linked to did find an impact associated with spearfishing; however in the conclusions the authors noted that the size class they saw a decline in was the ones over the 40 cm legal size limit - in other words, the same fish the hook-and-line anglers would be retaining.

 

[buckled plates]

Thank you pedro_rj for the supporting documentation. I'll read it all at my first convenience.

I pointed out the logical fallacy in your argument for the same reason I'd point out an error in math. It wasn't my intent to insult you, but to correct a mistake. The argument, as you framed it, puts spearfishermen at an immediate disadvantage. Although I don't believe that was your intention, I do believe it is the intention of the organizations behind the spearfishing ban. I believe they know exactly what they're doing, and how and why they're doing it.

The ban is not about spearfishing (alone). It's about two radically different approaches to the environment: a) conservationism which allows for man's interaction with the natural world (even at some expense to it), and; b) radical environmentalism which does not. It is my belief that radical environmentalist groups are behind the spearfishing ban, and it won't be the last ban on their agenda.

You asked if spearfishing does harm to the environment? The common sense answer is yes, if by harm you mean the taking of fish from their natural habitat by artificial means. But what do you mean by harm? Any and all harm? Some harm? How much would you accept? If no harm is your answer, then what else would you be willing to ban to achieve that goal?

For me, as a conservationist, sustainability of the environment is the object, and although spearfishing undoubtedly causes some harm, the negative effects are small, consistent with other means of fishing and, in the US, highly regulated and monitored. In my view, that's sufficient to maintain the status quo in spearfishing regulations.

But not in the view of radical environmentalists. They want all of mankind out, and they'll build on their successes one ban at a time. Working through groups like SEFRI and "many" others - all of them self-appointed, self-regulated, self-righteous, and accountable to only their donors - the environmentalists have learned how to insinuate themselves into the process of government regulation. Indeed, the fact that "Our Coral Reefs" (whoever they are) has set themselves up as the arbitrators in the public hearing process strengthens their legitimacy and is sufficient evidence of what they are attempting to achieve: a seat at the table, with everyone else on the menu.

I don't spearfish. I quit a few years ago after two uncomfortable encounters with sharks. Still, I recognize what's going on here through past experience dealing with environmental groups like SEFRI, and that's why I'm speaking out. If you're a diver, a fisherman, a boater (whatever), and you'd like to continue in your sport, then get involved with this issue. And if you're serious about getting involved, don't waste your time with SEFRI, "Our Coral Reefs," etc. Instead, call and write your elected Florida state representatives. Tell them you not only oppose the spearfishing ban, but that you oppose the manner in which it has been proposed. Tell them that you will hold them accountable for any damage to your interests that SEFRI inflicts. And then, if the ban does comes about, send your fishing license to the governor. Tell him you won't be buying another.

Only two things are effective at protecting your freedom to dive and enjoy your sport: politics and money.

Get involved!

 

[Wookie]

I think that the point that Buckled Plates is making is that after the mighty closures of the '90s and early 2000s, it's pretty clear that there will be no more major area closures like Tortugas and the trap and gill net bans. Which is really too bad in a way, because in my opinion, it's only that type of closure that works. Piecemeal closures like a spearing ban or stainless hook ban, or a partial closure like the SPAs in the FKNMC are silly. They don't work because they are too small, or they don't hit hard enough in the right places. We know where fish spawn, or at least the fishermen know where fish spawn. We know where they aggregate. We know where they live, and we know how they get from one place to another. Large area closures like Riley's Hump has had amazing results on fish populations. I may be one of the few people in South Florida that has seen a thousand black grouper in one place at one time. We've collected video of schools of fish containing 3500 mutton snapper, and there are 4-5 of those schools per year. Those fish can't help but spill over to surrounding area, where they are free to be caught.

No, a gear type closure is a mini grab. First, they come for the spearos, and no one spoke up, because there are relatively few spearos. Next, they will come for the commercial H&L guys, and no one will speak up, because there are relatively few commercial H&L guys. They they will come for the rec fishers, and they will scream and holler because the government is taking their recreation, and what, don't they pay registration fees? And their place will disappear too.

Now, If I were designing closures, I'd close the mutton snapper spawn at Western Dry Rocks from May to July. I'd wait 5 years, then I'd close the historic one at American Shoals, while leaving Western Sambo open. The same year I'd close Careysfort, and see if any of the blacks and cubera would come back, I'd close Careysfort for 3 miles in any direction. I'd look in Broward for historic spawning sites, and I'd close them for 3 miles in any direction.

Rebuilding fish stocks is relatively easy and completely awesome. Protect the fish that are spawning, and stocks will rebuild. Fish the pregnant ones (I know fish aren't pregnant) and you will destroy a population. It's really that simple.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I think that the point that Buckled Plates is making is that after the mighty closures of the '90s and early 2000s, it's pretty clear that there will be no more major area closures like Tortugas and the trap and gill net bans. Which is really too bad in a way, because in my opinion, it's only that type of closure that works. Piecemeal closures like a spearing ban or stainless hook ban, or a partial closure like the SPAs in the FKNMC are silly. They don't work because they are too small, or they don't hit hard enough in the right places. We know where fish spawn, or at least the fishermen know where fish spawn. We know where they aggregate. We know where they live, and we know how they get from one place to another. Large area closures like Riley's Hump has had amazing results on fish populations. I may be one of the few people in South Florida that has seen a thousand black grouper in one place at one time. We've collected video of schools of fish containing 3500 mutton snapper, and there are 4-5 of those schools per year. Those fish can't help but spill over to surrounding area, where they are free to be caught.

No, a gear type closure is a mini grab. First, they come for the spearos, and no one spoke up, because there are relatively few spearos. Next, they will come for the commercial H&L guys, and no one will speak up, because there are relatively few commercial H&L guys. They they will come for the rec fishers, and they will scream and holler because the government is taking their recreation, and what, don't they pay registration fees? And their place will disappear too.

Now, If I were designing closures, I'd close the mutton snapper spawn at Western Dry Rocks from May to July. I'd wait 5 years, then I'd close the historic one at American Shoals, while leaving Western Sambo open. The same year I'd close Careysfort, and see if any of the blacks and cubera would come back, I'd close Careysfort for 3 miles in any direction. I'd look in Broward for historic spawning sites, and I'd close them for 3 miles in any direction.

Rebuilding fish stocks is relatively easy and completely awesome. Protect the fish that are spawning, and stocks will rebuild. Fish the pregnant ones (I know fish aren't pregnant) and you will destroy a population. It's really that simple.

The mention of spawning aggregations brings up a good point. California, where I did my MS degree, is one of the model states for setting up a network of Marine Protected Areas. One thing they did not do, which dumbfounds me to this day, was protect spawning aggregation sites.

The spawning aggregations of two of the species I worked on, calico bass (Paralabrax clathratus) and barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), were heavily targeted by recreational anglers. It was typical for us to pull up on the Huntington Flats where the sand bass would spawn and have 15-20 "party boats" out there all day; figure each of those had 20 or so anglers on board and at the time (2009) each angler could keep 10 legal-size bass (of all species) each. That's a potential take of up to 4,000 bass per day at one relatively small spot while they all have sex on the brain and are hungry enough that they'd probably go after wads of toilet paper. Both calico bass and barred sand bass catches have dropped in the last couple of decades; barred sand bass landings in particular dropped about 85% between 2000 and 2011.

I was not surprised to hear that in 2013 the minimum size limit was raised from 12 to 14 inches and the bag limit was cut in half to 5 bass per day. As far as I know fishing aggregations is still fair game.

 

[CuzzA]

UPDATE:

Leave Fisheries Management to FWC | Keep America Fishing

On April 6 – 7, 2016, I attended another OFR meeting in Coconut Creek, FL. Despite an outpouring of opposition by more than 3,000 Florida anglers and no credible scientific proof that recreational fishing is causing problems for the reef habitat, it was extremely disappointing to learn that OFR has decided to proceed with the Recommended Management Actions (RMAs). The RMAs would reduce recreational fishing access in southeast Florida by up to 30 percent and reduce state control of our resources.

So, despite zero scientific proof and an outpouring of opposition, it would appear the Our Florida Reefs organization doesn't care what the people think. It's too bad for charter operators down south. I hope they can find a way to survive.

 

[buckled plates]

No surprise though. The only question now is: Who's next?