A massive underwater effort in June has produced some good news: Snapper and grouper seem to be making a comeback at the Tortugas Ecological Reserve.

"The reason they called it an ecological reserve is they wanted to promote the whole ecosystem — coral, fish, algae, yadda, yadda, yadda," said Jerry Ault, associate professor of marine science and fisheries at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. "In my mind, as a fisheries scientist, the economy of the Keys depends on the fisheries. It's big bucks, big industry.

"Papers have documented the serial overfishing of the Keys. Stocks have been fished to a point that they're no longer sustainable. They're on the verge of imminent collapse."

Serial overfishing is when fishermen shift their focus from one species to another as populations decline.

One of the most important fish groups in the Keys is what's known as the snapper-grouper complex. Eighteen grouper species and 18 snapper species inhabit the Keys.

Seventy percent of the complex has been fished to below the level of sustainability.

"The fleet size is changing," Ault said. "Historically, the fishery has been mainly commercial. Today, it's dominated by recreational fishing.

"So how do we solve the problem in the midst of saying everything is not hunky-dory? Traditional management actions — bag limits, size limits, season limits — have not been successful."

One possible solution was the creation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, where fishing is prohibited, in the westernmost waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

With no fishing pressure, the hypothesis is that snapper and grouper populations would rebound in the reserve, and fish then would move out into surrounding waters.

Two areas make up the 150-square-nautical-mile reserve, which was implemented July 1, 2001: The 90-square-nautical-mile Tortugas North, where diving and snorkeling are permitted; 60-square-nautical-mile Tortugas South, where diving and snorkeling are prohibited.

To determine how grouper and snapper populations were doing in the reserve, 42 fish-identification experts conducted what Ault jokingly called a "paramilitary assault on the environment": For 20 days, the team made 1,594 scientific dives covering 500 square miles in the reserve and unprotected areas and amassed 900 hours (37.5 days) of bottom time.

Results were compared to surveys of the same areas in 1999 and 2000.

Among the team's findings:

• In 1999 and 2000, divers saw black grouper at 17 percent of the stations; in June, they saw black grouper at 36 percent of the stations.

• Divers saw 5.5 times more black grouper.

• Divers saw more snapper and grouper in the legal-size range in June.

"It's really true for everything — yellowtail, hogfish, everything," Ault said. "They're showing signs of recovery."

The trip also brought a surprise.

"We ran into large schools of permit, thousands, big fish in the 20- to 40-pound class, in massive schools," Ault said. "We saw them at seven sites. It was spectacular.

"All these signs say the war isn't won yet, but we've declared victory in a battle. We're on our way to success."

Capt. Ralph Delph, of Key West, who has fished the Keys for 40 years, said no-take zones can be valuable under the proper circumstances.

"If the science shows species are making a comeback, closed areas are good, and they could then help populate surrounding areas," he said. "Everything has to be done with good science. If it works, great. If not, revamp it. Don't just lock in hard on something and say, 'This is a no-take zone forever.' "

Karl Wickstrom, publisher of Florida Sportsman and a vocal opponent of no-take zones, questioned the scientific team's findings.

"I was down there before it was a reserve, and I've been down there since, and there's been no change in fish populations," he said. "Traditional management does work. The reserve serves as a phony solution."

The Tortugas Ecological Reserve does nothing except harm recreational fishermen, Wickstrom said.

"A no-fishing zone on a particular coral head might be OK, but to have hundreds of square miles where families are locked out is plain silly, unless you're an anti-fishing zealot," he said. "If you're an anti-fishing zealot, you can go after recreational fishermen, which is a real shame because Florida has a long heritage of recreational fishing."

The scientific team's findings are "agenda-driven," Wickstrom said.

"They have little relation to reality," he said. "We knew as soon as the zones were established, they'd find great success.

"It's a sad thing to see scientists manipulate the facts for their own use. What they're doing is promoting no-fishing zones everywhere to give them something to study."

To which Ault responded:

"I totally disagree. We have set up an objective system for evaluation. That's why we are there. We have no axes to grind or crosses to bear.

"Here are the observations we're making: In 1999 and 2000, we saw a relatively low abundance of species we knew were overfished. What we found in June were positive signs that the numbers are up. What it means in the big picture is that it's positive, but it's too early to declare total victory."

Reserves are a new idea, Ault said, a radical measure to deal with serious changes in the system.

"What recreational fishermen don't like to chew on is that recreational fishing plays a very big part in total fishing mortality compared to 35 or 40 years ago," Ault said. "It's a different world. The recreational group needs to be part of the solution instead of sitting on the sidelines kibitzing."