Protecting offshore spawning areas is good for fish, fishermen

Re: Sept. 6 letter from Stephen Goldfinch, “More no-fishing zones unjustified”

If you read Rep. Goldfinch’s op-ed a little while back, you’d probably think fishery managers are recklessly putting large parts the ocean off limits to fishermen. Several items he mentioned may be somewhat misleading. I’d like to tell you the other side of the story. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is debating an important decision on which areas to protect offshore as Spawning Special Management Zones (SSMZs).

Last week, the Council voted to protect 3.1 square miles around Georgetown Hole, which is significantly less than the 13-15 square miles suggested by one commercial fisherman. The final vote on this issue and seemingly severe compromise will be in March 2016.

First, some perspective. Out of the 255,000 square miles of ocean managed by the council between the outer banks and Key West, only 600 square miles are currently designated as Marine Protected Areas, much of which is barren sand bottom. The Council’s present proposal is to protect only an additional 15 square miles of the 65 square miles originally proposed for protection of spawning habitat.

It is the council’s responsibility to help the recovery of deep-dwelling snapper and grouper species like speckled hind and warsaw grouper, presently fished to low levels. Although the balance between unlimited fishing of spawning areas and sustained numbers of large spawners is unknown at present, I believe that more and/or larger spawning areas should be protected.

Second, SSMZs will not be no-fishing zones. In fact, fishing at the surface for pelagic species like tuna, dolphin, wahoo, and billfish would still be allowed. Everyone — fishermen, biologists, and managers — would all like to develop and maintain a sustained fishery offshore for snapper and grouper species.

The bottom line is that fish eggs are essential to future fish populations. Large and old spawning-aged fish are necessary for long-term population replacement of those individuals that have been caught. Restricting some fishing in the proposed spawning protection zones is a small price to pay for potentially big payback, for recreational, commercial fishers, tourists and associated businesses in South Carolina.

Third, contrary to the claim that eight existing protected areas are going unmonitored, scientists from our state’s own DNR as well as the NOAA have been studying these areas since before they were even put in place (to provide a benchmark). Similar and additional research is planned for the proposed spawning zones, some of it in collaboration with fishermen.

Finally, the largest 24,000 square mile protected area, deep off Florida, contains some of the best coral communities in the continental US, but they have been devastated by scallop trawlers (i.e. bottom fishers), anchors and long-lines. This area was created to protect corals though, and not fish.

The snapper and grouper fishermen have learned to “motor fish” over these prime fish habitats without anchors. If a few spawning areas were to be protected from fishing over time, as proposed in a spawning Special Management Zones, any spawners (old fish) that reside there would be protected year after year to continue adding more eggs each year.

Establishing a series of Spawning Special Management Zones in our offshore waters means making an investment in our future. I hope the South Atlantic Council will not be sidetracked by political persuasion and consider the whole picture when it focuses science on which areas to protect.

Some of the biggest and best spawners will be required to replenish their populations, while future fishers, our coastal communities and the increasing numbers of tourists deserve more and better opportunities to catch snapper and grouper offshore.

This story was originally published September 27, 2015 at 5:04 AM with the headline "Protecting offshore spawning areas is good for fish, fishermen."