Recently published research from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) indicates that no-fishing zones (NFZs) are not the fisheries management tool that advocates claim.

“The claims of replenishment and other fisheries management benefits made by no-fishing zone advocates are clearly undermined by this research,” said CCA Florida Executive Director Ted Forsgren. “The results refute the theory that NFZs are viable fisheries management tools. It is also very significant that the research was conducted at the no-fishing zone near the Kennedy Space Center, the same area that NFZ proponents have been using to claim that replenishment does occur.”

FWC researchers conducted a long term and comprehensive assessment of fish moving into and out of a no-fishing zone. Between 1990 and 1999 fish were tagged and their movements between an estuarine no-take zone and the surrounding waters were examined. The tagged species were redfish, black drum, sheepshead, common snook, spotted seatrout, bull shark and jack crevalle.

Some key statements and findings from the FWC research are as follows:

“Reserve areas that attract and retain exploitable individuals
from surrounding habitats at higher rates than they replenish
those habitats could be considered to be sinks in terms
of their ability to directly supplement adjacent fisheries
through spillover of exploitable sized individuals. Fish
emigration from reserve habitats and the replenishment
of nearby fisheries is a commonly predicted benefit
of harvest reserves (see reviews in Robert and
Polunin, 1991 and Rowley, 1994). However, there
are currently no studies that simultaneously
examine emigration and immigration relative to
estuarine reserves or that document the extent to
which reserve areas may also function to
withdraw individuals from surrounding fisheries.
Without assessment of net exchange, the interpretation
of reserve benefits with respect to replenishment
cannot be properly evaluated.”

“Recapture rates for sportfish species that migrated
across the NTZ [no-take zone] boundary suggested that more
individuals may move into the protected habitats
than move out. These data demonstrated that
although this estuarine no-take reserve can protect
species from fishing, it may also serve to extract
exploitable individuals from surrounding fisheries.”

“There were substantial differences in the migration
patterns of fish between the two areas. In the vicinity
of the NTZ, the relative potential for overall sportfish
migrations (primarily red drum and black drum,
which provided the greatest quantity of tag recovery
data) towards the NTZ from unprotected habitats
(52%) was greater than the potential from migrations
out of the NTZ (5%)."

FWC staff further summarized the key issue of immigration versus replenishment for two important species by stating that “in the vicinity of the estuarine no-take zone at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, the relative rate of immigration into the reserve by sportfish species was higher than the rate of emigration out of the reserve for both black drum (90% vs. 25 %) and red drum (27% vs. 3%).”

The marine protected area (MPA)/no-fishing zone debate is a huge issue in Florida where 29 MPA/no-fishing zones, ranging in size from hundreds of acres to several hundred square miles, have already been established. More are being proposed all the time. In 2001, the South Atlantic Federal Fishery Management Council released a “shopping list” of 42 new MPA/no-fishing zones from North Carolina to Florida. Nineteen of the zones were targeted for Florida’s East coast. The proposed list has since been reduced to four off of Florida. In addition, the Biscayne National Park is currently developing a general management plan which will almost certainly include recommendations and options for no-take/no-fishing zones.

Throughout the debate CCA Florida has stated that there are far better management measures available to restore and manage saltwater fisheries. Such measures include spawning and other season closures, daily and season take limits, and size limits.

“These are proven measures which have restored and protected redfish, snook, seatrout, and other fisheries in Florida,” said Michael Kennedy, CCA Florida Chairman. “No-fishing zones should be the last course of action, not the first. There is no reason to go to the extreme of prohibiting all fishing.”

CCA Florida predicts this new research will have a major impact on the no-fishing zone issue and reinforce the need to remain focused on proven conservation measures to protect and restore fisheries.

“This no-fishing zone did the exact opposite of what proponents have been claiming,” said Forsgren. “Instead of replenishing adjacent areas, the zone pulled substantially higher numbers of fish from adjacent waters into the no-take zone.”