In a move to protect endangered elkhorn and staghorn corals, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit Monday in federal district court seeking greater protections from fishing for threatened coral reefs in the Caribbean.
The lawsuit asserts that the National Marine Fisheries Service, an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ignored science showing that parrotfish and other grazing fish play a key role in promoting the health of coral reefs.
“When they set catch limits for parrotfish, they didn’t do an adequate examination of the impact on the reef,” said Miyoko Sakashita, Center for Biological Diversity’s oceans director.
According to Sakashita, this shortcoming will impact elkhorn and staghorn corals. Both are protected under the Endangered Species Act.
“Corals are competing with algae, and without a robust population of parrotfish, the algae are going to win,” Sakashita said. “But wise management of our reefs can keep algae in check and promote both healthy corals and healthy fish.”
The press release indicates excessive algal growth threatens the health of Caribbean reefs, choking out corals and degrading the habitat that other reef creatures — such as fish, sea turtles and lobsters — depend on.
Fish, especially parrotfish, that graze on algae around coral reefs play a key function in providing suitable habitat for corals to settle and build those reefs.
Fish populations, including the parrotfish that are the subject of this lawsuit, have been overfished in the Caribbean. Managing the overfishing of parrotfish will help corals recover and become more resilient to other threats, including global warming and ocean acidification.
“The Caribbean’s coral reefs are already in deep trouble,” Sakashita said, “and reducing the parrotfish that help them stay healthy only makes matters worse.”
“If we don’t take steps now to safeguard the creatures that keep these vital reefs alive, we risk losing all of it.”
According to the lawsuit, the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Endangered Species Act by finding that the targeted fishing for parrotfish would not jeopardize already imperiled corals or “adversely modify” their critical habitat.
NOAA spokesman Allison Garrett said the agency could not comment because the matter is in litigation.
She forwarded information that said the catch limits for St. Croix stand at 240,000 pounds a year. For St. Thomas-St. John, the number is 42,500 pounds per year. The catching of blue, midnight and rainbow parrotfish is banned, but catching other species is allowed.
The press release indicates elkhorn and staghorn corals were once the dominant reef-building corals in the Caribbean but that they are now perilously close to extinction. Corals suffer from a variety of threats, including pollution, global warming and ocean acidification. A key threat to corals, however, continues to be overfishing and competition with algae.
The corals have declined by more than 90 percent since the 1970s. In 2006, the two corals were protected under the Endangered Species Act in response to a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity.
I am writing in response to the February 1 article “Parrotfish Subject of Suit to Protect Reefs”.
In 2007 when I was Director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, the St. Croix net fishermen, recognizing that they were under pressure to address a number of issues in their fishery, met to develop a management proposal of their own rather than a complete ban. They proposed:
1. Limiting the number of fishermen using nets to 9 people currently fishing.
2. Restrictions on the length, mesh size and depth of the nets to be used.
3. Identification of areas where nets can and cannot be used. (Not on or adjacent to coral reefs)
4. Requirement that license holder must be present while net is in water.
5. Requirement for reduction in the by catch of non-commercial sizes and species.
6. An annual 200,000 lb. quota for landings in the form of individual quotas equally divided among themselves. Note that this is 40,000 lbs less than the limit passed by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council.
7. Authority for the Commissioner to close the fishery once the quota is reached and to amend the quota should data indicate the need for closure following harvest of the quota.
8. Requirements for monthly reporting of landings.
9. Agreements for the fishermen to have their catches sampled.
10. Penalties for noncompliance.
11. Licenses could not be transferred. If a fisherman left the fishery that portion of the quota would be retired. Three have, which would have reduced the overall quota by another 66,000 lbs.
The St. Croix Fishery Advisory Committee narrowly passed a motion to implement this plan but when the anti net effort felt that they would lose their little “victory” they began a campaign of letters to the media which eventually wore down DPNR Commissioner Mathes who went along and implemented the ban instead of the management plan.
This was not a victory in any sense of the word. What was lost was 5 years of significantly reduced landings, below even that being asked by the Council and a group of St. Croix fishermen who would have been in a position to participate in managing their resource.
This idea that off-island NGOs and their local fronts would prefer go to the courts rather than deal directly with the primary stakeholders is a waste of everyone’s time, money and good will.
What will come of it is increased antagonism and distrust that will lead to unreliable data and more failure to manage the resouces. SEA, PEW and the Center for Biological Diversity lost this battle in 2007 when they failed to support the net fishermen of St. Croix.
David A. Olsen, Ph.D.
Chief Scientis
St. Thomas Fishermen’s Association