By Rob Holbert Managing Editor

It looks like another fish fight is brewing. Once again, it pits the small number of commercial fishermen still working in Alabama against the big money behemoth of the sports fishing community and its lobby, the Coastal Conservation Association.

As the new legislative session opened, Mobile Rep. Jamie Ison and Sen. Pat Lindsey announced legislation to ban gill nets in Alabama waters. On the surface, or if you only gather information from the area’s daily newspaper, it looks like the smart thing to do.

Alabama is the only state on the Gulf that hasn’t basically banned gill nets – a monofilament net that can be up to 2,400 feet long and is rather democratic in its selection of prey. When Ison announced the net ban bill March 5, much of the reason stated is the supposed depletion of Alabama’s Spanish mackerel population by the dreaded gill-netters. And all of that sounds great, unless you look at the science – or rather the stunning lack thereof.

While I’m certain Rep. Ison has no actual data to support a gill net ban, since none exists, I doubt she has evil intent with this legislation. In fact, I’m sure 99.9 percent of the people who support this bill have no ill will in their hearts, they just think they’re protecting their fish.

Because that’s what it always boils down to in CCA’s fights against the commercial fishermen. It’s a fight over who gets to catch the fish – the toothless, skulking commercial fisherman with is damnable net or the environmentally friendly sportsman with his $75,000 boat going after a trophy for the wall and dinner for the family.

I covered this same fight a decade ago as a reporter in Mississippi and the methods were remarkably similar. The marine science was the first thing thrown into the dumper in favor of emotion and anger. While the scientists calmly said there was no data to show fish stocks were being wiped out, the more organized and wealthy CCA fought for a ban.

The same was tried here, but Alabama came up with a compromise, one that appears to have worked – until now. The CCA has once again decided it wants the entire saltwater fishery dedicated to sports fishing. That might not be such a problem, except for the fact that might doesn’t equal right. In its latest push, the CCA argues it has a $500-million-a-year business in Alabama, which it implies gives sports fishermen the right to destroy other people’s right to make a living. And, let’s not forget, the rights of the rest of us non-Robalo-owners to buy locally caught seafood.

Those who have neither the time or money to fish the rigs and bays are the ones who get invisibly shafted if this unthinking net ban is passed. Essentially it says to non-sports fishermen in our community, “Hope you like Asian catfish, because that’s what’s for dinner at your house.” Right now, these reviled gill-netters are the last link to this area’s fishing history and provide the only method the average local citizen has of buying an Alabama fish to grill.

But sentimentality and hunger for fresh-caught fish wouldn’t be enough for me to side with the dreaded gill-netters if I really thought they were ruining our local fishery. I’ve taken a hard look at it, though, and can’t see where the sudden alarm is coming from – outside of propaganda ginned up by CCA leadership.

The red herring – or mackerel as it is – in this latest debate is the Spanish mackerel. A fish known for gamely attacking the line, it is prized by charter captains and other sporting types. It is also the species being touted by net ban advocates as the prime reason this legislation should pass. A CCA press release sent out the day the legislation was submitted breathlessly pointed out what’s happening.

“Since all other states along the Gulf Coast except Alabama have taken action concerning commercial gill nets, Alabama’s fish populations have suffered staggering losses. For example, commercial harvest of Spanish mackerel jumped from 117,000 pounds in 1993 to more than 2,000,000 pounds in 2004 – an increase of almost 20 times the catch in 1993,” the unsigned press release reads.

Unfortunately, according to National Marine Fisheries Service landing results, that second number is complete chum. NMFS statistics show Alabama commercial Spanish mackerel landings to be 913,905 pounds in 2004 – NOT 2 million! In fact, for the entire Gulf, only 1.15 million pounds of Spanish were landed, commercially that year. If the press release writers at CCA want to check the numbers, they are available at www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/.

And there’s the problem in a nutshell. We’re not dealing with reality. Phony numbers and anecdotal information are thrown around as if they are actual science and the next thing you know, some politicians are in Montgomery puffing cigars, shutting down our commercial fisheries and getting CCA donations to their campaigns. Meanwhile, the NMFS quotas for Spanish mackerel aren’t even being approached by the commercial fisheries and the overall Gulf-wide catch for this migratory species has FALLEN dramatically since net bans went into effect in other states.

In speaking with Vernon Minton, of the Alabama Department of Marine Resources, the agency charged with protecting this state’s fisheries, there is absolutely no debate among scientists that the Spanish mackerel population in the Gulf is very strong. NMFS annually sets a total quota of more than 9 million pounds of Spanish that may be caught in the Gulf, allotting 5.2 million to the commercial fisheries and 3.8 million to the sportsmen. The total catch for all is never more than 5 million pounds. And in 2005, the total commercial catch was 1.69 million pounds – about a third of what was allowed.

Minton told me at this time there is absolutely no scientific evidence showing Spanish mackerel depletion in Alabama waters. He also said there’s no evidence ruling it out. In fact, there’s just no evidence either way. The only scientist trying to claim a “localized depletion” is Dr. Bob Shipp of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, and he is – coincidentally?! – a paid consultant for CCA.

Meanwhile, Spanish mackerel landing information for recreational fishing remains about the same over the past 10 years. Some years it’s a lot, some years it’s not. Hey, isn’t that always how fishing goes?

I’m not saying a net ban should never, ever be considered. If the people paid to objectively monitor the fisheries say there’s a problem, I’d listen. But this legislation being considered in Montgomery doesn’t have good science behind it and should be tossed overboard like the ugly, useless bottom-feeder it is.

Until there’s adequate science to show a real problem, Alabama’s saltwater fishery ought to ought to remain open to the sportsman, the dreaded netters and those of us poor saps who might want to buy a fresh piece of fish at the local market.

Rob Holbert is Lagniappe managing editor. Contact him at rholbert@lagniappemobile.com.

Archives