Figure 40: Areal photograph of Buck Island Reef National Monument

(Pittman et al., 2008). The extended area now encompasses the “fish aggregating device” (FAD) identified in the charts with the letter C. This popular FAD was placed by the Division of Fish and Wildlife to shift effort from the reef fish fishery to the pelagic fishery. NPS believes that this FAD must be removed from the area of the monument. Although, the Clinton Presidential proclamation made the entire monument a no-take area, illegal fishing allegedly takes place in the deeper parts of the monument (Pittman et al., 2008). Reportedly, compliance has improved in recent years due to greater surveillance by enforcement patrols (Pittman et al., 2008).

Figure 40: Areal photograph of Buck Island Reef National Monument.

Source: National Park Service

Work by Karras and Agar (2009) reveals that large numbers of commercial fishermen believe that the BIRNM expansion effectively increases fish abundance within the monument. They report that 52% of their respondents (N=95) believed that the expansion of BIRNM increased the numbers of lobster, conch, snapper and grouper. Recent biological work by Pittman et al. (2008) shows that, over colonized hard bottom habitats, aggregate fish biomass (all fish combined) and herbivores biomass were higher inside the BIRNM relative to the adjacent areas.

Surprisingly, Karras and Agar (2009) found that fishermen were generally skeptical about other purported biological benefits of MPAs such as the protection of spawning aggregations, the export of additional fish biomass outside its boundaries, and the protection of fish sensitive sites. Karras and Agar (2009) report that most fishermen deemed that the recent expansion did not afford any additional protection to spawning aggregations since they were already well taken care

of by the original boundaries. In addition, fishermen questioned the size of the expansion since it extended into depths of 5000 ft. Most fishermen were frustrated by the designation because they did not understand what was being protected at those depths and felt that the designation overreached since it extended far beyond what it meant to protect (Karras and Agar, 2009).

The Karras and Agar (2009) study also examined the socio-economic impacts of the expansion of the monument. The study found that the expansion in combination with other area closures such as East End Marine Park (EEMP) is forcing fishermen to fish longer and farther away. With the closure of Buck Island, “little by little, we get squeezed out,” a phrase some repeated like a mantra. Buck Island was not only a traditional fishing ground but also provided shelter during storms and rough seas. With the closure of Buck Island and the EEMP, fishermen have to use more fuel and time to travel to other areas, such as Lang Bank, to catch snappers, conch and reef fish. In the view of many of the people we interviewed, the expansion of Buck Island was “a bad idea for St. Croix.”

The area is rich in coastal and pelagic resources and also in bottom species such as snappers. The buoy is perhaps the best site for pelagic fishing in the island. It also represents a great accomplishment by the DFW, which is well recognized by sport and commercial fishermen alike. The work by Karras and Agar (2009) found that fishermen were skeptical about the ability of the closures to generate alternative sources of employment, particularly for the island’s youth. Furthermore, they remarked that the increasing number of closures and the limited amount of shelf area had forced them to harvest in waters exposed to industrial and sewage effluent.

Mutton snapper, queen conch and the Red hind seasonal closures

These seasonal closures seek to protect the spawning aggregations of mutton snapper, queen conch and red hind to ensure their long-term survival. In our interviews we found support for these closures. Most fishermen believed that these regulations were beneficial to the sustainability of these stocks.50 However, Karras and Agar (2009) found that only 39% of their interviewees agreed that the red hind closure adequately protected spawning aggregations. Their results seem to be consistent with recent biological assessments. For instance, Whiteman et al. (2005) report a decrease in the age and length of sexual maturity for red hind, suggesting that the selective

50 At the time this manuscript was written there were no completed scientific analyses of the response of conch and mutton snapper populations to the closures.

removal of larger males has resulted in less fecund females which are maturing sooner. Similarly, Nemeth et al. (2006) argue that the slow recovery of red hind spawning aggregations is partly due to poaching, which they observed while conducting their work about spawning aggregations. Poaching is believed to take place because of the remoteness of the closure and the shape of the western boundary which complicates monitoring and enforcement. Spawning aggregations occur 600 m away from the western boundary, which makes them vulnerable to overexploitation since fishermen tend to operate along the edges of the closure. During our interviews with fishery officials and scientists, they also noted the presence of sabotage and vandalism, with marker buoys punctured at the red hind and mutton snappers seasonal closure areas.

According to statements provided by two highly regarded fishermen, the mutton snapper and red hind closures had their support. In fact, both fishers claimed that it was also their idea to have the closures. Both understand the importance of closing an area and allowing the species to reproduce during the spawning season in order for the population to recuperate:

I was the one who pushed for the mutton snapper closures. I caught two hundred pounds, [just] the catch I could sell, and left…but others attacked it as if it was the end of the world.

Unfortunately, we were not able to gather much information on the conch closure. Nevertheless, a key interviewee stated that divers agree that the closure ‘seems to be working’ since now there is plenty of conch in the area.

Enforcement remains the weak link in the management process. Although fishermen were not as open and forthcoming on this issue on the earlier DFW surveys, we found widespread agreement on this issue. The recreational sector is eager to point at enforcement as one of the key problems, and government officials admit that more needs to be done in order to protect fish resources and habitats. One alternative may be to incorporate the fishermen in the process of enforcement. A strong argument for their inclusion in this process is that there is a core of fishers with high conservation ethics, who fully understand the benefits of compliance. These fishers could also

play a larger role in the management process.51 Several fishermen said that enforcement not only includes detection but also should include the (public) sanctioning of offenders.52

East End Marine Park

“Now both parks overlap, there is no free area. For years they tried to get people to fish, to promote the industry, both commercial and charter. Imagine if you have been responding to this, learning how to fish, investing in equipment, for years, and suddenly you can fish no more” Local people will survive. The local fisherman is a very resourceful individual. “But there will be a big shift on how people are going to go about doing it. They will have to change modes of fishing, gears, etc. 53

The East End Marine Park is the U.S. Virgin Islands’ first and largest marine park. The mission of the park is the protection and management of natural and cultural resources of St. Croix. The park protects the largest island barrier reef system in the Caribbean. The park which was established on January 15, 2003 encompasses a 60 square mile area (Figure 41). The East End Marine Park is a multi-use park. There are four different types of managed areas within its boundaries: no-take areas, recreation management areas (Cramer Park), turtle preservation area, and open fishing areas (St. Croix East End Marine Park, 2009).

51 The recommendation came from a fisherman who also requested that management agencies incorporate them as peers in the process of conservation. 52 This is a public issue, as it is discussed in radio programs and political advertisement, as documented by our team during our visits. 53 Statement from a sport fisherman.