Fish flourish, families struggle with ban

Tuesday, March 8, 2005

Fish flourish, families struggle with ban
By David Angier Panama City News Herald Writer 747-5077 / dangier@pcnh.com

Some fish may have prospered since the state enacted a net ban in 1995, but
it "has come with a significant negative impact" on 1,500 Florida families
that once made their living from fishing, according to a Florida House of
Representatives committee report.

Staff for the Committee on Water and Natural Resources submitted a report
Feb. 23 to committee members called "Impacts of the Net Ban Constitutional
Amendment." The report made three significant conclusions: Certain fish
species have rebounded; commercial fishing families and communities have
experienced economic and social impacts; and any further attempts to assess
fish stocks should include the impact of recreational fishing.

The committee staff cited work by Suzanna Smith, a researcher with the
University of Florida who studied 44 fishing families before and after the
net ban.

Before voters approved the net ban amendment in 1994, fishing families in
the state already were under enormous stress from increasing fish
regulation, Smith said. She said divorce rates among fishing families were
higher than average in the early 1990s and the enactment of the net ban
added to the problem.

Money issues, Smith said, forced many couples to separate.

She said families that stayed together changed from relying almost entirely
on the men to make the household income through fishing to depending on the
wives to find employment. Smith said men who once spent all their work time
fishing had to find second jobs.

She said most of the families had lower middle-class incomes.

"Many of these men were working two or three jobs," Smith said.

"These were hard jobs with long hours. They did it because they really
wanted to continue doing something they loved." Most of the fishing families
also were unwilling to accept government assistance.

"They were fiercely independent people and had a lot of pride in being able
to support themselves and their families," she said.

According to the committee report, the net ban forced about 1,500 families
to either alter their fishing gear or leave the industry. Of the 44 families
that Smith and her group studied, threequarters have stayed in the fishing
industry, but "only 70 percent of those were fishing full time compared to
90 percent" before the net ban.

"The percentage of family income from fishing has decreased from 80 percent
to only 50 percent," according to the report.

In addition, the number of fishermen going after: Mullet decreased from 91
percent to 67 percent Sea trout decreased from 41 percent to 9 percent
Pompano decreased from 50 percent to 18 percent Stone crab increased from 9
percent to 36 percent Grouper increased from 7 percent to 15 percent.

Chuck Adams, marine economist with the University of Florida and Florida Sea
Grant Program, tried in 2000 to come up with a better picture of the net
ban's impact on fishermen.

He said the issue was too complex to say how much damage the ban had done.

"There are so many other factors that affect local economies and that affect
local fishing industries," Adams said. Coastal fishermen, he said, already
were under pressure from developers who wanted to change the landscape.

"The net ban was a major player at the time and a lot of people lost their
jobs overnight because of this," he said. "But can you take that one event
and account for all the changes?" Adams said there could have been changes
in the market, rising property taxes or other forms of regulation on certain
fish stocks.

The net ban was enacted by people who "didn't understand the net ban from a
biological standpoint and a social standpoint," Adams said.

"The net ban was a very Draconian measure," he said. "The people who
supported it felt the traditional science-oriented approach was going way
too slow." He said there's no doubt the ban had a positive influence on
certain fish, but he questioned whether less drastic regulation would have
accomplished the same thing without the social and economic impacts.

"There's a contingent trying to get the net ban repealed right now. If they
can get it repealed, more power to them," Adams said. "This is an issue that
needed to be kept within the realm of science.

Something this politically charged shouldn't be turned over to the public in
a referendum." According to the committee report, "The purpose of the
amendment was primarily to protect saltwater finfish from overfishing. Based
on the available data, it now appears that for certain selected species of
fish that purpose has been accomplished." Striped mullet, Spanish mackerel
and sheepshead no longer are considered overfished. Spotted sea trout and
bluefish still are overfished, as are pompano, even though stocks of pompano
are increasing. There were no stock assessments for crevalle jack, flounder,
ladyfish, menhaden or Spanish sardine.

The report said additional regulations that went into effect after the net
ban contributed to a reduction in fishing trips for species such as spotted
sea trout, weakfish, shad and pompano.

"It appeared that the stocks of striped mullet were increasing as early as
1998," according to the report. "Sheepshead stocks have been increasing
since 1994." The report states that recreational fishing, which accounts for
64 percent of the fish caught in the Gulf of Mexico, needs to be looked at.

"The results of recent research looking at the impacts of recreational
marine fishing nationwide show that there has been a significant increase in
recreational fishing effort over the past 20 years," according to the
report. "With public attention focused on the impacts of commercial fishing
on fish stock depletion, by catch and habitat damage, little attention was
paid to the impacts of the recreational sector."