ORLANDO — A federal panel trying to protect red snapper from overfishing shrank plans for a controversial fishing closure area Wednesday, but still endorsed restrictions that admits will damage fishing off much of Florida’s Atlantic coast.

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council agreed to rules that would ban bottom fishing for dozens of species in more than 4,800 square miles of ocean from Central Florida to South Georgia.

Catching red snapper anywhere, in that area or not, would be forbidden.

Talk of the Town: What do you think of the ban?

The closure zone is a second step meant to keep fishermen from accidentally ensnaring red snapper — which government researchers say are dangerously over-fished and nearing collapse — while catching species that travel in the same places. Those would include other varieties of snapper and grouper.

Fishermen railed against the decision.

“They just gave fishing a death blow today. … A death blow to the fishing industry on the east coast of Florida,” said James Busse, a longtime commercial fisherman who owns a seafood company in Cocoa.

The plan still needs to be approved by U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and isn’t expected to take effect until December, when a stopgap ban on red snapper fishing expires.

Fishing in the restricted zones would still be allowed for some species, such as tuna, shark, wahoo and mackerel, but they’re caught using different equipment and different methods than snapper.

When the day started, the plan envisioned restrictions covering more than 6,100 square miles. But panel members agreed to exclude areas roughly between the South Carolina state line and Glynn County, Ga., after softening some criteria for measuring success.

But the vote Wednesday represents a key milestone in a contentious debate that energized commercial and recreational fishermen, as well as environmental activists who say snapper populations will collapse without dramatic action to limit the number being harvested.

“The South Atlantic Council deserves credit for taking an important step,” said Holly Binns, manager of a Pew Environmental Group campaign against overfishing in the Southeast.

As to whether the scaled-back restrictions will be effective, “we’ll have to see,” she said.

Although the plan allows as much as 35 years for snapper populations to recover, there is some chance the rules might be used for only a short time — or not at all.

Reacting to broad skepticism about the research supporting the new rules, fisheries managers have launched a new review of the snapper numbers in the Southeast. Findings should be presented to the council in December — just as the new rules take effect — and members repeatedly spoke of being ready to backtrack if they find the new restrictions are too severe.

The new review “is going to be the vehicle used to ultimately make the decisions regarding red snapper,” said council member George Geiger, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and conservation advocate from Sebastian in Indian River County.

Questions about the work so far have left fishery managers vulnerable to public criticism, warned Roy Crabtree, the Southeast administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“We’re buried under controversy,” Crabtree said, cautioning council members to act judiciously. “The public has lost confidence in the science we’re using.”

The council had once envisioned restricting fishing in more than 10,000 square miles of coastal waterways extending into the Carolinas. That was pared back in March to end near Savannah, then trimmed Wednesday to reflect a looser standard of how many snapper had to be saved from fishermen.

But council members said there was no viable way to spare Florida because the greatest numbers of snapper are clustered there.

The council’s research forecasts multimillion-dollar losses to the state’s fishing industry.

Council chairman Duane Harris said it represented the hardest problem he has faced there because of the damage it will cause to fishermen. But he said the council is legally bound to act quickly because of research suggesting snapper populations are a tiny fraction of healthy historical levels.

The American Sportfishing Association and sporting business Big Rock Sports LLC reported a study Wednesday that they commissioned, which estimated fishing retail businesses would lose $78 million during the first year of the new rules.

Fishermen have also argued the new rules are far outside the council’s legal role of ensuring fisheries remain healthy, sustainable and economically important.

“This is being driven by extreme environmental groups who want to close the oceans to all fishing,” said Paul Nelson, a commercial fisherman and charter boat captain from Port Orange in Volusia County.

“They are not using real science,” Nelson said. “They’re using flawed data.”

He said his family has caught snapper since 1954, and the population seems larger than when they began. Nelson said 80 percent of his business involves bottom fishing, and he and the relative working for him have all faced pay cuts because of the current, temporary snapper ban and the recession’s impact on customers.

Crabtree told council members he’s confident the new rules will rebuild snapper populations, and said there are chances to loosen the rules if new research supports that.

“I think we’ve done the best we can on this,” he said. “We’ll come back to this when we get the new assessment.”

steve.patterson@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4263

Link to article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-09/story/federal-fishing...