“Florida has a terrible fishery.”
That’s the opinion of one South Carolina lawmaker.
“South Carolina has a wonderful fishery,” said S.C. Rep. Stephen Goldfinch. “And Georgia has a wonderful fishery.”
In his view, it’s unfair for his state and two neighboring ones to be restricted by “draconian” conservation measures that are “based off of Florida science and not based off South Carolina science.” He was referring to new measures that the South Carolina-based South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is considering.
“Florida’s fisheries are very easily accessed, so anybody with a canoe can go out to the reef,” said Goldfinch, a Republican.
“In South Carolina and Georgia, it takes you 40, 50, 60 miles to get out to where you need to.”
Goldfinch wants South Carolina to object to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s possible new restrictions on deep-water fishing, arguing that proposed restrictions have no scientific justification.
He is taking particular aim at “marine protected areas,” which are zones that are carved out to help a stock recover from overfishing. There is a proposal in the works that would target bottom fish for protection in deep waters, such as the speckled hind and Warsaw grouper, but would still allow people to troll for tuna and other surface fish.
Nearly three-dozen of Goldfinch’s colleagues in the Legislature have signed on to his nonbinding resolution, H. 4596, which sends a message against fishery closures off the state’s coast: “South Carolinians are sick of it,” said Goldfinch. “It’s killing the economy on the coast, and we can’t have it anymore.”
The lawmaker said he’s not alone in his concerns.
“From what I can tell, North Carolina representatives, Georgia and Florida representatives are also very interested in doing the same thing, not having the expanded MPA,” said Goldfinch.
The fishery council’s public information officer Kim Iverson said it’s too early in the process to know what the members will decide is the best course.
The council, which consists of representatives from each state, will be meeting in June to consider extending or reconfiguring existing protections or adding new zones of restrictions.
Putting the restrictions in place is a lengthy process that ultimately falls to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
Eight such protected areas were put in place off the South Atlantic coast in 2009.
‘There’s been some angst’
That closures affect how much fish gets hauled from the ocean doesn’t seem to be in dispute.
“Closures could be detrimental to both commercial and recreational fishermen,” said Jessica McCawley, one of Florida’s council members and state Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s director of the Marine Fisheries Management division.
“In general the (Florida agency) believes that closures should be used as a management tool of last resort after other management measures have been tried and failed.”
Iverson said decisions to reduce catch limits, shorten seasons and make other changes are painful but lead to important recoveries for fish stocks.
“There’s been some angst,” Iverson said, adding that state politicians sometimes oppose closures.
Goldfinch may be South Carolina’s most vocal opponent of new restrictions. He said environmental activists drive some of the fishery council decisions.
“The environmental groups lobby, they pay, they contribute quite a bit,” said the lawmaker.
“If you ask any of the SAFMC members what they do at night, you’ll find out that they’re being taken out by (unspecified name of group) and some of the other environmental groups.”
Goldfinch’s claim drew a sarcastic response from SAFMC member Chris Conklin: “Oh, yeah, definitely.”
In reality, he said, “We’re not allowed to accept any gifts or any patronage.”
Conklin, of South Carolina, owns a bait and tackle business, along with a retail and wholesale seafood business.
“Environmental groups have just as much say as anybody else,” he said. “What it comes down to is a well-balanced, diverse group of well-qualified people.”
One of Georgia’s council members, Charlie Phillips of Townsend, also said the council accepts a wide range of input.
“I can only speak for myself in that I often have conversations with any and all of the stakeholders, listening to their thoughts and concerns,” he said.
Phillips said all are invited to participate, “including the non-fishing, consuming public to tell us how they want our fisheries to look like in the future, and how to keep them sustainable.” And he noted: “As for my meals when talking to any stakeholder group, I pay my own bill.”
Time to break apart?
Goldfinch said it would make sense for South Carolina to form its own council, instead of being part of the four-state organization.
He also suggested each state form its own council.
Asked if it would be better if South Carolina, in effect, seceded from the fishery council, McCawley of Florida declined to weigh in.
“It is not up to me to determine whether a particular state should secede from the council,” she said.
There are advantages and drawbacks to operating as a regional bloc.
But Iverson said splitting off into single-state councils would add to the complexity of managing the fisheries.
“You could see how a fishermen fishing out of Hilton Head could find himself in Georgia water fairly quickly, and Georgia would have different rules and regulations than South Carolina,” she said.
Iverson pointed to the Florida Keys, where there are state and federal regulations along with different rules depending on which side of the bridge you fish on.
“The more you chop it into pieces the more complicated it gets, as far as collecting data and all of the regulatory pieces.”