Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

Final Report

Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Final Report

Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Biscayne National Park

Miami, Homestead, and Key Biscayne, Florida

Final Report

Biscayne National Park

Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

October 2006

originally prepared May 2003

by EDAW Inc.

1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 620

San Diego, California 92101
Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

National Park Service

100 Alabama Street, SW

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

404.562.3117

Biscayne National Park

9700 SW 328 Street 

Homestead, Florida 33033-5634 

http://www.nps.gov/bisc

About the covers: The front cover includes (clockwise

from top left ) the Boca Chita Lighthouse, a man casting

a line at the Mowry Canal, bas-relief fish on the Biscayne

Headquarters sign, and local fishermen at Card Sound.

The back cover shows fish sculptures located at the

Dante Fascell Visitor Center. Both covers use a

background map showing southeast Florida. 

This ethnographic study exists in two formats. A

printed version is available for study at Biscayne

National Park, the Southeast Regional Office of

the National Park Service, and at a variety of

other repositories. For more widespread access,

this study also exists in a full-color web-based

format through the web site of the National Park

Service. Please visit www.nps.gov for more

information.
National Park Service iii

Biscayne National Park

Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Final Report Recommendations
iv Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

STUDY TEAM

This work was a collaborative effort involving a number of individuals. John C. Russell, Ph.D.

(EDAW), performed ethnographic research, was responsible for the ethnographic literature

review, and served as the day-to-day project manager and primary author of the report

following the first year’s fieldwork and interim draft report. Manoj Shivlani, M.A. (University

of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science [RSMAS]), directed the

literature review of existing park uses as well as the shoreline fishermen interview effort.

Jackson Underwood, Ph.D. (EDAW), was responsible for a significant portion of the

ethnographic interview effort. Martin Watson (EDAW) compiled the background information

on the socioeconomic and demographic context of the area and was responsible for the

majority of the photography in the report. Daniel Suman, Ph.D. (University of Miami, RSMAS),

worked in conjunction with Manoj Shivlani on a number of tasks. Michael A. Downs, Ph.D.

(EDAW), served as the principal investigator on this project, was a contributing author, and

directed field efforts.
National Park Service v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1.0 BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK IN SOCIAL CONTEXT: AN 

ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 THE HISTORICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF 

BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 A Brief Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1.1 Pre-contact Aboriginal Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1.2 Post-contact Exploration and Colonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2.1.3 American Indians and Peoples of African Descent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.1.4 Territory, Statehood, and the Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.5 Post-Civil War to World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

2.1.6 Post-World War II to the Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.1.7 The History of Biscayne National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.2 The Contemporary Socioeconomic Context of Miami-Dade County . . . . . 2-8

2.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.2.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

2.2.3 Economy, Employment, and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

3.0 EXISTING LITERATURE: THE SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT OF 

SOUTH FLORIDA AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Regional Commonalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1.1 Tourism Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1.2 Neighborhood Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.1.3 Environment and Shared Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.2 American Indians: The Seminole and Miccosukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.2.1 Population and Social History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.2.2 Lifestyles and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.2.3 Sociocultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.3 Cuban-Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.3.1 Demography and Social History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.3.2 Lifestyles and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

3.3.3 Sociocultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

3.4 African Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

3.4.1 Population and Social History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

3.4.2 Lifestyles and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28

3.4.3 Sociocultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29

3.5 Nicaraguans and Haitians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30

3.5.1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30

3.5.2 Social History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

3.5.3 Sociocultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42

3.6 Cracker Culture in South Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44

3.6.1 Social History and Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45

3.6.2 Lifestyles and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47

3.6.3 Sociocultural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49
vi Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 

Section Page

4.0 EXISTING LITERATURE: USES OF THE PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

5.0 AN ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF USERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES 5-1

5.1 Recreational Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.1.1 Shoreline Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

5.1.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

5.1.3 Inshore Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

5.1.4 Offshore Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.2 Commercial Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.2.1 Blue Crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.2.2 Stone Crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.2.3 Wingnet Shrimpers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

5.2.4 Trawl Shrimpers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

5.3 Stiltsville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

5.4 The Boating Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25

5.4.1 Powerboaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25

5.4.2 Sailors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26

5.5 Tow Boat Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28

5.6 Sport Diving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29

5.7 Environmentalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

5.8 Other Community-Biscayne National Park Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31

5.8.1 South Florida Blacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31

5.8.2 Old Family Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34

5.8.3 Contemporary Seminole and Miccosukee Connections with

Biscayne National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

6.0 SUMMARY: BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT 

AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

APPENDICES

1 Methods and Research Approach

2 GIS Maps
National Park Service vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Locator Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2 Population Per Square Mile: Miami-Dade County 1990 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

3 Population Per Square Mile: Miami-Dade County 2000 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

4 Forecasted Miami-Dade County Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

5 Non-White Minority as a Percentage of Total Population: 

Miami-Dade County 1990 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

6 Non-White Minority as a Percentage of Total Population: 

Miami-Dade County 2000 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

7 Miami-Dade County Population by Race, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

8 Miami-Dade County Population by Ethnicity, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

9 Hispanic Population as a Percentage of Total Population: 

Miami-Dade County 1990 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

10 Hispanic Population as a Percentage of Total Population: 

Miami-Dade County 2000 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

11 Miami-Dade County Total Employment by Major Industry Categories, 1999 . . . 2-27

12 Hispanic Population, Miami-Dade County, 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

13 Landings in Major Fisheries, 1990-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

14 Finfish Catch and Effort, 1990-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

15 Stone Crab Catch and Effort, 1990-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

16 Blue Crab Catch and Effort, 1990-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

17 Lobster Catch and Effort, 1990-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

18 Bait Shrimp Catch and Effort, 1990-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

19 Shrimp Catch and Effort, 1990-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

20 Catch by Month in 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

21 Catch by Month in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

22 Catch by Month in 2001 (through November) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

23 Miami-Dade County Marinas Near Biscayne National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

24 Marine Sanctuaries and Parks Adjacent to Biscayne National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

25 Highway One Road Signs for Biscayne National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

26 Convoy Point Visitors Center Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

27 Concessionaire Boats at Convoy Point Dock (top) and Afternoon Shoreline

Fishing at a Canal Mouth within Biscayne National Park (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

28 Canal Fishing within Biscayne National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

29 Black Point and Homestead Bayfront Marinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

30 Black Point Marina and Stone Crab Claws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

31 Wire Traps (Blue Crab) and Wood Slate Traps (Stone Crab, Lobster) at

Black Point Marina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17

32 Commercial Fishing Vessels at Dinner Key Marina (top) and Black Point

Marina (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

33 Commercial Fishing Vessels at Card Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20

34 Commercial Fishing Vessels at Black Point Marina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21

35 Stiltsville Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

36 Commercial Tow Boat Operations at Homestead Bayfront Marina (top) and

Grounding Damage Adjacent to Boca Chita Key (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27

37 The Miami Skyline as Seen from Biscayne National Park (top) and Turkey

Point Power Plant Looking South from Biscayne National Park (bottom) . . . . . . . . 6-5
viii Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Population Change, 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2 Population Growth of Municipalities Adjacent to Biscayne Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

2.3 Florida and Miami-Dade County, Population by Ethnicity and Race, 2000 . . . . . . 2-16

2.4 Miami-Dade County Race and Ethnicity, 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2.5 Age Distribution in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.6 Numerical Population Increase from 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2.7 Florida Legal Immigration, Most Prominent Nationalities, 1991-1998 . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.8 Miami International Airport Rankings for 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

2.9 Income Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2.10 Unemployment Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.11 Historical Distribution of Annual Non-agricultural Employment in Miami-Dade

County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

2.12 Employment by Industry, Miami-Dade County, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

2.13 Largest Employers in Miami-Dade County, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

3.1 Changing Percentages of Nationality Components of 

Dade County’s Hispanic Population – 1970-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.2 Estimates of Nationality Components of 

Dade County’s Hispanic Population in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.3 Population of Dade County, Florida, by Race and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

3.4 Place of Birth, by Ancestry, Black Population, Dade County – 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20

3.5 Black Population and Percent of Population, 

Selected Cities, Dade County – 1950-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22

3.6 Population of Black Neighborhoods in Dade County – 1960-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
National Park Service ix 

FOREWORD

Within the Ethnography Program of the National Park Service, an “Ethnographic Overview and

Assessment” is described as:

The most comprehensive background study, this document reviews existing

information on park resources traditionally valued by stakeholders. The

information comes mostly from archives and publications; interviews with

community members and other constituents – often on trips to specific sites –

supply missing data. This study also identifies the need for further research

(http://www.cr.nps.gov/ethnography/parks/approaches/index.htm).

Doing an Ethnographic Overview and Assessment for Biscayne National Park (BISC) presented

special problems. It is a park “without a gate,” open locally to access by foot and by water, yet

it is literally within the “gateway” to Latin America; it is little wonder that visitors – or refugees

– entering BISC might easily be unaware that they have come into a national park. It is a natural

resource park of open waters and islets, yet it is surrounded by the sprawling, burgeoning

metropolis of greater Miami. It is situated in what was one of the last frontiers of the lower

forty-eight United States yet has one of the longest histories of European contact in the nation.

It is a park that permits commercial fishing and has a long-standing resident population in some

very unusual dwellings in the water, “Stiltsville,” yet it is a locale for both quiet family outings

on shore and sometimes riotous recreation on the sea. It is a park situated in what had become

one of the most culturally diverse and dynamic regions of the country at the end of the

twentieth century.

Given these circumstances, just identifying stakeholder groups is in itself a challenge. Hence,

through census records, this study gave close attention to the rapidly changing demographic

character of the surrounding population. Likewise, the activities of those who make their living

at least in part from the fishery resources of the park warranted careful attention to the landing

statistics of the area. Recreational fishing in the park meant that in the absence of reliable

statistics, researchers had to undertake some small scale pilot study surveys in the field. In

combination with these special requirements for the BISC ethnographic overview and

assessment, the study required a thoroughgoing survey of the published literature on the

cultures of the various peoples currently associated with the park – from those who lived in the

area before there was even a Miami to those who arrived by plane and boat yesterday to join

their compatriots who immigrated to south Florida only a few years or decades earlier. 

For a new park, in a newly developed region of the country, with an ever changing ethnic mix

and body of “traditions” – including park usage – an ethnographic overview and assessment is

always a work in progress. Even so, no matter how much and how soon this report might need

to be updated in future years, it does provide a baseline for understanding the complex human

environment of BISC and the multiple communities that have a stake in the park. It is important

to keep in mind, however, that the report provides but a starting point to scholarly and scientific

writing on the many ethnic and other groups that give meaning to the ethnographic resources

of the park. For some groups, e.g., the Seminoles, much has been written; for others, e.g.,

commercial fishermen of various ethnicities, the ethnographic literature is just emerging. 
x Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 

There were many topics – beyond the constraints of project time and budget – that we wished

the report might have been able to pursue further. These included the Jewish heritage of Miami

Beach; populations from other Latin American countries, e.g., Brazil and the Dominican

Republic; the general development of “tourism culture” in the region; the role of horse racing,

jai-alai, and tribal gaming operations in the cultural mix of which BISC is a part; controversies

surrounding various Afro-Caribbean religions that might find their way to the park; the clash

of “Yankee” and “Cracker” culture with the ever more international character of the Miami

area; and much more – not the least of which is how the park might better relate its mission and

its resources to the complicated mix of peoples and cultures locally, nationally, and, indeed,

internationally which surround the park. But an ethnographic overview and assessment is only

a beginning. The exceptionally able authors of the study provide, in the end, a very sound and

well focused set of recommendations for further research. Some of these have already begun

to be realized through the subsequent Fishery Management Plan for BISC. In turn, this report

and the data summarized within it have already proven useful to park management in a variety

of areas. Not the least of these is the potential use of the document by new park employees as

a “primer” on the character of the surrounding community.

Though communities and cultures everywhere are always changing, we hope that this report

will prove helpful to employees, contractors, managers, and visitors alike in understanding the

human environment for Biscayne National Park at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

J. Anthony Paredes, Regional Ethnographer

Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office, NPS

Brenda Lanzendorf, Archeologist/Cultural Resource Manager

Biscayne National Park

December 2005
National Park Service 1-1

1.0 BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK IN SOCIAL CONTEXT: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC

OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT

Located between metropolitan Miami-Dade County and the upper Keys community of Key

Largo, Biscayne National Park (BISC) occupies about 173,000 acres of diverse and dramatic

natural and cultural resources. About 95 percent of the total area of the park is covered by

water, ranging from the mangrove-lined mainland coast to the protected waters of Biscayne

Bay, to sand and coral keys and beyond to coral reefs and the Florida Straits. BISC resources

attract nearly 500,000 persons each year. These visitors are from nearby communities such as

Miami and Homestead, but they also travel from other parts of the United States, Canada,

Europe, Asia, and other worldwide locations to dive the coral reefs and shipwrecks, fish the

flats, sail the channels, view the wildlife, hike and camp on the keys, and otherwise enjoy the

natural and cultural resources of BISC. 

The social and cultural landscape surrounding BISC is as rich and as diverse as the park’s

natural resources. The Miami Circle archeological site, located at the mouth of the Miami

River, is a prehistoric archeological site that was inhabited for more than 2,000 years by

Tequesta Indians. Offshore, the wreck of the HMS Fowey, an eighteenth-century English

vessel, is in relatively shallow water almost within sight of downtown Miami. On nearby Boca

Chita Key is a stunning old lighthouse that was part of the Honeywell family compound and on

Porgy Key to the south is the home site of Parson Jones, an early Black entrepreneur in this

region. His family bought the island and developed a thriving citrus farming business in the

early part of the last century. There are other American Indian and pioneer sites scattered

throughout the offshore keys, and many other wrecks dot the ocean bottoms of BISC’s reefs.

Spanish, French, English, and other explorers and settlers have also left their mark on this

landscape, as have the more recent migrants from New York, Denver, Havana, and beyond.

From Mardi Gras and Super Bowls to Santeria and Cracker story-telling festivals, the cultural

landscape of the surrounding region is a rich and diverse mix of traditions and lifestyles.

Residents of these communities most obviously interact with BISC by providing visitors to the

Park. However, the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, nearby agricultural fields that result in

runoff into the Bay, commercial fishing, the lobbying of concerned environmentalists, day-boat

cruisers, and sponge poachers each interact with BISC resources in ways that have management

implications. The purpose of this report is to provide some insight about the cultural context

of BISC and the management implications of that context.

This Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment provides a general

description of the social and cultural context of BISC and discusses current user groups and

their activities within the Park. As an overview, discussion of social and cultural context is in

terms of broad themes rather than in-depth detail about beliefs, customs, lifestyles, and patterns

of social interaction. This overview also emphasizes cultural groups specific to the geographic

area surrounding BISC as represented in readily available ethnographic literature. There are

other cultural and social groups in the greater Miami-Dade area, but the emphasis in this report

is on those ethnic groups that are well represented in the existing literature. The discussion of

user groups categorizes activity types among visitors and describes their interactions with BISC

resources. This discussion emphasizes commercial fishing and other water-based commercial

and recreational uses of BISC resources. Limited observations are also included regarding how
1-2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

particular ethnic groups use BISC resources. A review of existing reports, academic literature,

and U.S. Bureau of Census data combined with limited ethnographic fieldwork is the basis for

the discussion of users, their activities, and concerns about BISC resources. The ethnographic

fieldwork (described in Section 5) focused on identifying current sociocultural conditions and

issues associated with user groups and other interested parties. The report also identifies some

of the major gaps in social and cultural knowledge about surrounding communities and

discusses how existing information might be useful for BISC managers. The treatment of gaps

in the literature and in overall knowledge about the connections of surrounding communities

with BISC should be considered preliminary. Nonetheless, this is a starting point for

understanding both what is known and what is yet to be developed about the overall

ethnographic context of BISC. 

The remaining sections of the report have the following contents:

• Section 2 provides a historical and socioeconomic overview of the area and communities

adjacent to BISC. Two major topics are presented:

– A brief historical overview of south Florida and the region adjacent to the Park

– An overview of the contemporary Miami-Dade County demography and economy

The history discussion is a broad overview that establishes the major historical trends that

resulted in the current social and cultural context of modern-day Miami-Dade County. The

summary of the demography and economy describes current population structure and

major components of the regional economy.

• Section 3 is a summary of ethnographic literature for selected cultural groups for south

Florida in general and Miami-Dade County in particular. Regional commonalities are first

reviewed, followed by a summary discussion for the following ethnic groups: American

Indians, Cuban-Americans, African Americans, Nicaraguans, Haitians. Also discussed are

a group of non-ethnic rural whites known specifically in Florida as “Crackers” (For a full

definition of the term as it pertains to south Florida, and the culture that surrounds the

group, see Section 3.6). These populations are major cultural groups within communities

surrounding the Park. Their experiences as new and old residents of the region illustrate

a wide range of cultural and social issues that may also influence new immigrants to MiamiDade County.

• Section 4 is a description of user activities as expressed in documents particular to BISC.

This discussion emphasizes the role of commercial and recreational fishing as well as other

types of water-based commercial and recreational activities. These documents, primarily

government and academic reports and papers, do not necessarily represent all types of users

and activities, only those represented in some existing literature.

• Section 5 identifies users and activity patterns as a supplement to the discussion in Section

4. There is a preliminary discussion of connections between ethnic groups and activity

patterns within BISC, but this discussion raises as many questions as it answers. Given that

ethnographic methods received limited application for this project, the emphasis in this
National Park Service 1-3

section is the gaps in information about issues and data that should be developed in future

work. 

• Section 6 summarizes issues related to users, activities, and sociocultural groups in relation

to the major types of resource management issues indicated by the secondary literature and

ethnography.
1-4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment
Other histories of Florida (e.g., Gannon 1996; Jahoda 1976; Tebeau 1971) should be consulted for more 1

in-depth discussions about the people and events that shaped south Florida and the major time periods of Florida

history.

National Park Service 2-1

2.0 THE HISTORICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF BISCAYNE

NATIONAL PARK

The current social and cultural context of BISC is influenced by the region’s history,

demography, and economy. History has set the stage for the composition of Miami-Dade

County’s communities and the types of issues that concern its residents. Similarly, the current

demographic trends and economic patterns in the region describe important characteristics of

the sociocultural environment of BISC. This section is a brief overview of both the history and

current socioeconomic conditions of south Florida and specifically Miami-Dade County. This

information is a prelude both to the discussion of sociocultural groups (Section 3) and the

activities of BISC users (Section 4 and Section 5). 

2.1 A Brief Historical Overview

Historians group south Florida historical periods in various ways, but a common grouping is 1

as follows: pre-contact aboriginal history; post-contact exploration and colonization; Seminole

and Miccosukee; territory and statehood; post-Civil War to World War II (WWII); and WWII

to the present. This section summarizes major historical themes for each time period.

2.1.1 Pre-contact Aboriginal Period

Near the mouth of the Miami River, recent development activities uncovered a site that

archeologists have interpreted as part of an ancient town occupied by an aboriginal people

known as the Tequesta. About 40 square feet of this archeological site, which is on more than

2 acres of land, revealed 24 basins in the bedrock that were surrounded by a circle of about 300

other basins alleged to be postholes. This site is believed to be between 1,700 and 2,000 years

old (Carr and Ricisak 2000:282). However, this site does not date to the earliest inhabitants of

this region. Paleoindians probably were in Florida since about 10,000 to 12,000 B.C. The

discoveries by Royal at Warm Mineral Springs in southwestern Florida (Royal and Clark 1960)

and later archeological work by Clausen (Clausen et al. 1975) in the 1970s and Cockrell

(Cockrell and Murphy 1978) in the late 1970s and through the 1980s at both Warm Springs and

Little Salt Springs indicate human remains that date to at least 10,000 B.C. These early peoples

came from unknown places and traveled in an area where the coastline was significantly

different than it is today. By approximately 5000 B.C., the climatic conditions and physiography

of Florida began to stabilize, and populations of Paleoindians began to increase. By about 3000

B.C., the climate was comparable to present-day conditions, and the shoreline also approximated what it is today (Milanich 1996:4-5). Stone tools, a well-developed pottery tradition, and

a culture that exploited fresh and saltwater shellfish appears to characterize the peoples of this

time. By 1000 B.C., there were signs of settlements with sand mound burials, and by 800 A.D.

there were indications of larger settlements and the introduction of cultivation of domesticated

plants (Milinach 1996:9). From north to south, the Paleoindian populations showed different

adaptations to their environment, and regional cultures developed. In south Florida, a group
2-2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

of hunter-gatherers who exploited marine resources are termed the glades culture (Florida

Anthropological Society 1997). These people lived in the same areas later inhabited by the

Tequesta, who occupied the site on the Miami River that is now known as the Miami Circle.

It is estimated that the population of aboriginal inhabitants of Florida numbered about 350,000

by the time Ponce de Leon sailed into the vicinity of Biscayne Bay. Of these inhabitants, about

150,000 lived in the west, central, and southern parts of what is now the State of Florida

(Milanich 1996:14). After this time, disease and war ravaged the Native population, causing a

significant decline (Dobyns 1983). Today, shell middens, pottery, stone tools, and other such

artifacts are the remains of these cultures (Sears 1982; Goggin 1998). 

2.1.2 Post-contact Exploration and Colonization

In the spring of 1513, Ponce de Leon was probably the first European to explore what is now

the vicinity of Biscayne Bay. He named the area Los Martires (the martyrs) because the rocky

keys were said to remind him of men who were suffering (Gannon 1996:20). It appears that

hostilities between Ponce de Leon and Natives of the region were common in early encounters.

Indeed, subsequent explorers, such as Panfilo de Narvaez and Hernando de Soto, landed

vessels and crew and initiated explorations of coasts and interior regions and they also

encountered hostile inhabitants. Substantial resistance to Spanish and other explorers appears

to have inhibited the development of permanent settlements. The French also attempted to

establish a presence in Florida with their explorations in 1562, when Jean Ribaut landed near

what is now St. Augustine. The French made additional efforts to establish a colony (Lyon

1996:40-42), but conflicts with the Spanish as well as with Natives thwarted their efforts. The

Spanish explorer Pedro Menéndez de Avilés fought with the French explorers, and it was he

who established the first permanent Florida colony in 1565 at St. Augustine. 

The Spanish also had some success with establishing missions in Florida and up the Carolina

coast. One of these, known as Mayaimi, was established in 1567 at a site that later became the

City of Miami. By about 1590, there were garrisons on the west and east coasts of Florida.

Mission activity extended into the seventeenth century, but conflict among French, Spanish,

and Natives continued, and Florida was characterized as a “land of constant war” (Bushnell

1996:74). Through missionizing activity by the French and others, the Native populations of

Florida became exposed to disease and other influences, which caused a population decrease.

A result was that the Spanish, French, Dutch, English, and others had limited labor to build

settlements. The first significant appearance of the English was by Sir Francis Drake who

raided the Spanish colony of St. Augustine in 1586. However, the Spanish remained largely in

control of Florida despite the incursions of other European powers, until the Spanish ceded

Florida to the English after the Seven Years’ War (Fabel 1996:134). The English split Florida

into East and West territories with capitals at St. Augustine and Pensacola, respectively.

However, tropical fevers, difficult terrain, ongoing problems with American Indians, and

limited economic opportunity inhibited the development of major English colonies. 

By 1778, England was once again at war with Spain, and Florida was the prize. The Spanish

attacked west Florida and continued westward into what is now Louisiana. In east Florida, the

English enlisted the help of Creek and Choctaw Native Americans in their battles against the
National Park Service 2-3

French, but the Spanish were persistent and formidable. In 1783, the English ceded Florida to

Spain in the Treaty of Paris, which was part of the settlement that ended the Revolutionary War.

In what is commonly known as the second Spanish period in Florida, the population began to

increase due to Spanish land grants and increased economic opportunity associated with

tobacco, indigo, and lumber (Coker and Parker 1996:152). Yet peace in Florida was short lived,

as the United States began to show interest in French and Spanish holdings in the region. In

1814, Andrew Jackson led troops into Florida, and Spain eventually ceded Florida to the U.S.

in 1821. By then, the legacy of exploration and colonization in Florida was a heterogenous population of British, Spanish, French, Indians, people of African descent, and other nationalities.

2.1.3 American Indians and Peoples of African Descent

During the period of exploration and colonization and through statehood and the Civil War,

American Indians remained, and peoples of African descent became prominent in Florida

history. A thorough discussion of this history is beyond the scope of the historical overview

presented here. Sources elaborating that history should be consulted for a more detailed

description of the history of these peoples in Florida (e.g., Colburn and Landers 1995;

Covington 1993; Wright 1986). This discussion briefly summarizes some existing literature to

emphasize the importance of these groups in the early history of Florida. 

Landers (1996:167ff) suggests that peoples of African descent most likely entered Florida with

the Spanish. Ponce de Leon, De Soto, and other Spanish explorers were accompanied by both

free and enslaved Blacks from Spain. Subsequently, African slave labor was part of the process

of Spanish colonization, especially when American Indian populations began to decline. The

population of peoples of African descent in Florida increased because of continued importation

of slaves and an influx of escaped slaves from the Carolinas and elsewhere. By 1814, some

estimates place Blacks at about 57 percent of Florida’s population (Landers 1996:178). With

the presence of the English, slavery became more prevalent and subsequently the presence of

larger populations of freed slaves was a concern of slave owners in states adjacent to Florida.

Some slaves escaped and joined the Seminoles and other American Indian groups, prompting

further hostility between the United States and peoples in Florida. As U.S. incursion extended

into Florida, slavery became more prevalent and many formerly free Africans fled to Cuba and

elsewhere in the Caribbean (Landers 1996:180-181). 

The political situation in the Colonies resulted in pushing some southeastern Native Americans

into northern Florida. These groups called themselves saminoli or refugees because they were

displaced from their homelands. By the mid-1700s, these Indians were well established in north

Florida (Garbarino 1989). The Creek wars of 1813 in the states north of Florida drove

additional populations of American Indians south into Florida. The saminoli and later

populations of Creeks are among the ancestors of the early Seminoles in Florida. This

transition of Creek to Seminole is summarized in Seminole tribal history as follows: 

Creek War of 1813-14, the brutal repression and disastrous treaty forced upon

them by General Andrew Jackson sent thousands of the most determined

warriors and their families migrating southward to take refuge in Spanish

Florida. There, they joined the descendants of many other tribes whose
2-4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

members had lived all across the Florida forests for thousands of years. The

Indians who constituted the nucleus of this Florida group thought of themselves

as yat’siminoli or “free people,” because for centuries their ancestors had

resisted the attempts of the Spaniards to conquer and convert them, as well as

the attempts of the English to take their lands and use them as military pawns.

Soon, White Americans would begin to call all of the Indians in Florida by that

name: “Seminoles.” (Seminole Tribe of Florida 2002)

The United States pursued a policy of removal of Indians from Florida through three identified

“Seminole wars.” The first of these was in about 1817-1818, the second from about 1835-1842,

and the third was in the time period of 1855-1858. Osceola, Cooacoochee, Octiarche, Billy

Bowlegs, and other Seminole leaders fought substantial battles against U.S. troops, but in the

end almost 4,000 Seminole were relocated to lands in Oklahoma, leaving what was believed to

be less than 300 Seminole in Florida. These remaining Seminole relocated to the remote

Everglades and Big Cypress areas of Florida, often residing on small islands where their

presence was difficult to detect. Ultimately, the United States established reservations for

Florida Seminole in what are now Broward and Palm Beach counties. 

2.1.4 Territory, Statehood, and the Civil War

Andrew Jackson was dispatched to develop the territory of Florida, where in 1824, Tallahassee

was established as its capital. Immigrants from nearby states and elsewhere, including those

from the southeast who were later known as “Crackers,” began to swell the population and by

1840, it is estimated that Florida had a population of about 55,000. East, central, and west

Florida were more populous than south Florida where less development occurred. During this

period of expansion, two issues dominated: the removal of the Seminole from lands they occupied, and access to lands for agricultural development. Plantations were established and slaves

were major sources of labor for landowners. In 1845, Florida was admitted as the twentyseventh State of the Union and William Moseley was elected the first governor. Cheap land and

opportunities for economic growth fueled a population boom and, by the end of the 1850s, the

population was about 140,000. Economic growth was built on the slave labor of Florida’s

cotton plantations. Indeed, slavery appears to have been an essential part of the economy as

well as the political concern of post-statehood Florida (Schafer 1996:225-227). This concern

was expressed by Florida’s vote for secession from the Union in 1861 and its joining the

Confederacy at the start of the Civil War. Florida, in particular south Florida, was a major

source of salt and beef for the Confederate armies during the Civil War. This fact resulted in

the only major Civil War battle in Florida: Union troops engaged Florida forces at Olustee in

an attempt to disrupt the transport of supplies north to Confederate armies. The Union forces

were driven back, but there were few reasons for Floridians to be cheerful given the poverty and

social disruption that accompanied Florida’s participation in the war. After 1865, Florida as

well as the remainder of the South was in dire economic conditions until the late 1870s.

2.1.5 Post-Civil War to World War II

Florida suffered with the rest of the South during reconstruction. However, as political and

social conditions began to stabilize, the economy began to recover. Citrus crops, cattle, and
National Park Service 2-5

other agricultural products dominated Florida’s economy. The population remained

concentrated in about 10 cities, but by 1880, there was a population of about 260,000, nearly

half of whom were black. Key West was the largest city (about 10,000), followed closely by

Jacksonville and Pensacola (Proctor 1996:272). By 1896, the renowned developer, Henry

Morrison Flagler, finished a railroad link to the fledgling city of Miami. In 1912, the link to Key

West was complete. With these developments, many of the transportation impediments to

south Florida’s growth were removed. Only the arrival of the automobile would have a greater

effect on population and commerce in Florida. 

Florida’s population increased substantially, with the majority of growth coming from white

immigrants. During this time, there was also a concomitant relative decrease in the black

population. Miami became a center for tourism and population growth in south Florida. By

1900, the population of Florida was almost 530,000, with Dade County growing more than 500

percent since 1890 (Proctor 1996:282). In the early part of the twentieth century, the story of

south Florida is one of spectacular land development in Miami Beach and the rest of coastal

Florida. Retirees and tourists began flocking to the region and the real estate boom fueled

economic growth. Derr describes the boom as the opening of the “American Riviera,” where

dreams and reality were often confused:

In the heady years of the early 1920s, the dream of Florida mattered far more

than its realities. Buoyed by victory in the War to End All War, flush with

optimism and money, people climbed into their cars and puttered down the

open roads toward America’s near tropics. . . . Trains and boats, more additional

thousands to Tampa, Miami, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Orlando. No place

escaped the boom of the 1920s, though no place experienced it more profoundly

than the lower east coast of the peninsula (Derr 1989:181).

The boom went bust in 1926 and many who made real estate fortunes were left penniless, but

Miami, Florida, was established as a world class tourist destination and one of the shining cities

of the United States. The Great Depression compounded some of the effects of the real estate

bust, but a strong agricultural base, WPA projects, and tourism kept fueling the engines of

growth. By the outbreak of WWII, Florida’s population was about 1.9 million. 

2.1.6 Post-World War II to the Present

Economic and ethnic diversification, phenomenal population growth, and urbanization are

only some of the trends that characterize Florida since WWII. After WWII, many of the

hundreds of thousands of military personnel who trained in Florida returned to either live or

vacation. By 1950, the population was about 2.8 million, by 1960 it was nearly 5 million, and by

1990 it was 11 million. Air conditioning made some of the growth possible as did the efforts at

mosquito eradication and control. And, unlike past patterns of growth, south Florida was the

center of the new population boom (Derr 1989:337-338). Much of this growth was the result

of widespread migration. Cubans, Haitians, and other ethnic groups from the Caribbean and

central America became important components of south Florida, and especially the Miami

population. However, Cubans were among the most prominent of the Caribbean immigrants.

Many Cubans left because of the rise of Fidel Castro and they found safe haven because of
2-6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

favorable immigration policies resulting from cold war-related tensions between the United

States, Russia, and Cuba.

Miami and south Florida in general have one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the

United States. Another characteristic of this population growth has been the concentration of

residents in urban areas. Before the major population boom of the twentieth century, Florida’s

population was predominantly rural. Most recently, Florida has developed one of the most

urban and aged populations in the United Sates. More than 18 percent of the population in

1990 was older than 65 (Mohl and Mormino 1996:422-23), and in some of the southern

counties the percentage ranges from 30 to 50 percent (Derr 1989:339). Economically, the state,

and especially southern Florida, has diversified from its previous cattle, citrus, and tourism

base. Technology, tourism, and especially service industry employment are major features of

the region’s economy. Today, Miami is not only a major U.S. center, but it is known as a

“capital” of the Caribbean, a truly international city that is ethnically and culturally diverse.

This complexity gives Miami and southern Florida a unique ambiance, but one that escapes a

clear-cut characterization. One author’s description captures this complexity:

From the early 1960s through the present there has been substantial immigration

from northern states, as well as from Latin America and the Caribbean.

Hispanics, who currently account for over one-half of Dade County’s

population, have contributed to Miami’s emergence as a major Latin American

commercial and cultural center. As a result, Florida’s largest city contains a

majority Latin American population, a large Black minority with a significant

Caribbean island element, and a large Jewish population. The result is the

gradual development of a unique local culture which synthesizes aspects of all

cultures. For example, Miamians are likely to share a café cubano on their way

to a bar mitzvah, where they may kiss each other on the cheek in greeting and

dance to reggae (Bucuvalas 2000).

2.1.7 The History of Biscayne National Park 

Leynes and Cullison (1998), in their review of BISC historical resources, discuss the historical

background and development of Biscayne Bay and Miami. Their work should be consulted for

a more detailed analysis of the interaction of BISC and the development of south Florida. Some

of the major points of their analysis regarding the history and historical resources of BISC are

highlighted below.

Aboriginal History

As noted earlier, the environs of Biscayne Bay have been inhabited by aboriginal peoples since at

least 10,000 years ago. Within BISC, archeological evidence of early habitation exists on Sands Key

and at other sites around the perimeter of Biscayne Bay (Leynes and Cullison 1998:10). Juan Ponce

de Leon, in about 1513, encountered Tequesta Indians at the mouth of the Miami River, which

flows into Biscayne Bay, but the Tequesta seemingly disappeared from this region early in the

historic period. Other aboriginal peoples visited the area, but it appears there were no permanent

residences in the vicinity of the Bay or what is now BISC. Although some Seminole established
National Park Service 2-7

residence at Ochupocrassa in 1820, it appears that no Seminole lived on lands that are now part of

BISC (Leynes and Cullison 1998:11). However, Native Americans probably have used the

resources of Biscayne Bay and its environs for as long as they have inhabited the area. That is,

they lived in the vicinity or traveled through areas adjacent to the modern-day BISC and used

resources as indicated by the various middens and other artifacts that are found in BISC.

Early European History

Sailing vessels used the straits of Florida as a passage from the Gulf into the Atlantic. Some

vessels sank or ran aground, circumstances that prompted some early entrepreneurs to develop

salvage operations. Some of these wrecks are part of the historic resources of the park,

including the Spanish vessel Nuestra Senora de Populo (1733) and the British warship HMS

Fowey (Leynes and Cullison 1998:11). The salvage operators, who were American Indians,

Spaniards, Bahamians, and Euro-Americans, lived primarily in temporary camps. These salvage

or wrecking operations were somewhat slowed by the construction of lighthouses and the use

of steamships rather than sailing vessels. Salvage operations continued in the area, until halted

in 1921 by the Wrecking License Registry (Leynes and Cullison 1998:13). During the early

Spanish and British periods in south Florida, the region was sparsely populated. After the

Americans took control of Florida there was some settlement, but as late as 1877, when

Commodore Munroe reached Biscayne Bay, there were still only a handful of settlers (Leynes

and Cullison 1998:14). Agriculture was the impetus for the development of much of the lands

after the Americans took control, and this was also the case in south Florida and the environs

of Biscayne Bay, where pineapple plantations thrived. Slaves and other laborers were brought

in to work on these plantations and the population of the region began growing. Plantation and

Elliott Keys were major centers for these pineapple plantations. Soil depletion resulted in a

change from pineapples to limes and then to other crops such as lemons, peaches, and other

tropical fruits. By the late 1800s, homesteading, especially on Elliott Key, added to the growing

population. 

Flagler’s Railroad, the Growth of Miami and Biscayne Bay

Most of southern Florida was difficult to reach until the completion of the railroad between

Jacksonville and Miami by Henry Flagler, who had been urged on by Julia Tuttle, a Miami

landowner and entrepreneur. Flagler had a major resort hotel in St. Augustine and had a similar

vision for Miami, which would be aided by the presence of easy transportation via the railroad.

The completion of the railroad began a process of people flowing into Miami. The population

swelled from 500 in 1896, to 15,000 in 1915, to more than 71,000 by 1925. This was the period

when Miami and Biscayne Bay began to develop as an “American Riviera.” This new

playground drew old and new millionaires, including Carl Fisher and others who built fishing

lodges, hotels, golf courses, and mansions in Miami and its environs. The Keys of Biscayne Bay

became part of this “millionaire’s playground.” For example, Boca Chita Key became a retreat

for the Honeywells who built an array of structures, including a lighthouse, which are now

important historical resources currently located in BISC (Leynes and Cullison 1998:26-37).

Biscayne Bay continued to be part of the Riviera image associated with south Florida. The

status of the bay, first as a National Monument in 1968, and then as a national park in 1974,

reinforces early images of escape into the environment that Flagler, Fisher, the Honeywells, and
2-8 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

others wished to create. BISC has now evolved into part of a new and developing set of images

and expectations about Miami and south Florida that include a multicultural metropolis with

ties to the Caribbean and Central America as well as South America. This evolution continues,

raising questions concerning how BISC will respond to local pressures and perceptions.

2.2 The Contemporary Socioeconomic Context of Miami-Dade County

While examining south Florida history establishes the foundations of the contemporary

sociocultural setting of Miami-Dade County, it is the demographic and economic

characteristics of the county that structure its current form and identity. This section

summarizes the county’s major demographic and economic characteristics, including

population composition and trends, economic structure, and income and employment. County

demographic data are compared with the state of Florida to illustrate its relationship to overall

state demographic patterns. 

2.2.1 Background

Miami-Dade is the largest county within the state of Florida, encompassing more than 2,000

square miles along the southeast tip of the Florida Peninsula (Figure 1). On its western and

southwestern borders, Everglades National Park occupies fully one-third of the County’s total

land area. Broward County is to the north, Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean are to the east,

and the Florida Keys are to the south. Within the county there are 90 cities/incorporated areas

with a total population of 2.25 million persons (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001a).

Approximately 98 percent of Miami-Dade County’s population resides within 12 miles of the

coast (FEMA 2000). Agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, and government constitute major

economic sectors within an overall County economy that had a net value of production (Gross

Regional Product) of $64.9 billion in 1998 (Beacon Council 1999). The County’s workforce is

multi-ethnic and, traditionally, new immigrants have been an important labor source for

tourism, manufacturing, and agricultural industries in the region. Recent demographic trends

illustrate significant overall growth and increasing diversity within the County’s population.

2.2.2 Demography2.2.2 Demography 

In reference to the region, various information sources such as U.S. Bureau of the Census

publications, newspaper articles, and journal papers, use a variety of terms such as the MiamiDade Metropolitan Area, Dade County, and the Miami-Dade County and Primary

Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA). For the purposes of this section, all of these terms refer

to Miami-Dade County.
Brevard

Hernando Orange

Pasco

Polk

Osceola

inellas

Indian River

Highlands

Hardee

Hillsborough

Okeechobee

St Lucie

Manatee

De Soto

Glades

Martin

Sarasota

Hendry

Charlotte

Palm Beach

Collier

Lee

Broward

M Miami-Dade onroe

Monroe

30 0 30 Miles

Figure 1

Locator Map

 

 National Park Service 2-9

Source: ESRI

Scale = 1:2,000,000

LOCATOR MAP

Study Area

Miami-Dade County

FLORIDA
2-10 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Population 

The population within Florida, as of 2000, numbered 15,982,378 persons, up from 9,746,324

persons in 1990, showing an increase of 63.9 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001a).

Florida remains the fourth most populous state in the nation behind California, Texas, and New

York, respectively. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. population increased 13.1 percent, placing

Florida third and seventh nationally with regard to numerical and percentage population

growth, respectively (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b). Table 2.1 summarizes 1990-2000

population growth for the state as a whole as well as for Miami-Dade and contiguous counties.

Table 2.1. Population Change, 1990-2000 

Area

Population % of State Growth

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990-2000

Florida State 9,746,324 15,982,378 n/a n/a 63.9

Miami-Dade 1,937,094 2,253,362 19.87 14.1 16.3

Broward 1,255,488 1,623,018 12.88 10.15 29.3

Collier 152,099 251,377 1.56 1.57 65.3

Monroe 78,024 79,589 0.8 0.49 2.0

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 2001a

According to the 2000 Census, Miami-Dade County, with 2,253,362 persons, was the most

populous of Florida’s 62 counties and constituted 14.1 percent of the population of the state

of Florida. The county, with a population of 1,937,094 persons in 1990, then constituted 19.87

percent of the population of the state and had numerically grown 16.3 percent as of 2000. The

contiguous counties of Broward, Collier, and Monroe, in turn, had 2000 populations

constituting 10.15, 1.57, and 0.49 percent of the state’s population, respectively. Broward and

Collier Counties had increases in populations numbering 29.3 and 65.3 percent, respectively,

from 1990. However, the population of Monroe County fell 2.0 percent over the same period

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b).

The communities adjacent to Biscayne Bay comprise a major portion of Miami-Dade County’s

population. Table 2.2 outlines some of these communities and their recent population change.

Virtually the entire area experienced some level of growth, and many of the major metropolitan

areas of Miami to the north (specifically Hialeah, Doral, Richmond West, and Country Walk)

exhibited substantial levels of population expansion during the past decade. The

unincorporated areas of the county to the west of BISC also experienced significant population

growth. These trends can also be seen when comparing population density per square mile for

Miami-Dade County between 1990 and 2000 (Figures 2 and 3). 
S#

S# S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

Hialeah

Opa-locka

Homestead

Sweetwater

North Miami

Miami Beach

South Miami

Coral Gables

Miami Springs

North Miami Beach

/(1

/(1

/(41

StateHwy821

StateHwy874

State Hwy 836

State Hwy 826

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Florida City

Key

Biscayne

MIAMI

Biscayne National Park Everglades

National Park

Thompson

Park

7 0 7 Miles Figure 2

Population Per Square Mile:

Miami-Dade County 1990 Census

00034 Biscayne/GIS/population density.apr 2/19/01

 ddd National Park Service 2-11

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

40000 0 40000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 40,000' (1:480,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

BROWARD COUNTY

Biscayne National Park

#S Cities

Highway

Parks

10,001 - 20,000

5,001 - 10,000

1001 - 5,000

101 - 1,000

0 - 100

Population Per Square Mile

20,001 +

LEGEND
S#

S# S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

Hialeah

Opa-locka

Homestead

Sweetwater

North Miami

Miami Beach

South Miami

Coral Gables

Miami Springs

North Miami Beach

/(1

/(1

/(41

StateHwy 821

StateHwy874

State Hwy 836

State Hwy 826

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Florida City

Key

Biscayne

MIAMI

Biscayne National Park

Everglades

National Park

Thompson

Park

7 0 7 Miles Figure 3

Population Per Square Mile:

Miami-Dade County 2000 Census

00034 Biscayne/GIS/apr/pop_sqmi_census2000.apr 7/15/02

2-12 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

40000 0 40000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 40,000' (1:480,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

Biscayne National Park

#S Cities

Highway

Parks

10,001 - 20,000

5,001 - 10,000

1001 - 5,000

101 - 1,000

0 - 100

Population Per Square Mile

20,001 +

LEGEND

BROWARD COUNTY
National Park Service 2-13

Table 2.2. Population Growth of Municipalities Adjacent to Biscayne Bay 

Municipality

1990

Population

2000

Population Change

Miami Beach 92,639 87,933 -5.07%

Aventura 14,914 25,267 69.41%

Bal Harbour Village 3,045 3,305 8.53%

Coral Gables 40,091 42,249 5.38%

Key Biscayne 8,854 10,507 18.66%

Miami Shores Village 10,084 10,380 2.93%

North Miami City 49,998 59.880 19.76%

North Miami Beach 35,359 40,786 15.34%

Homestead 26,866 31,909 18.77%

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 2001b

The projected population trend for Florida, and Miami-Dade County in particular (Figure 4),

is continued rapid population growth. The 1996 Bureau of the Census population projection

(starting from 15,233,000) shows Florida’s population growing by 36 percent between 2000 and

2025 (to 20,710,000). That is the fourth fastest projected rate of growth in the country. It is

estimated that Miami-Dade County’s population will reach almost 2.5 million by 2010 (Bureau

of Economic and Business Research 1999).

Figure 4. Forecasted Miami-Dade County Population Growth

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population, Vol. 1, Characteristics of

Population, Part 11, and Florida Consensus Estimating Conference, 2000; and BEBR, 1999

Race and Ethnicity

The Miami-Dade County area may be characterized as cosmopolitan, with many ethnic groups

present, including an array of minority populations. The Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) defined “minority” to consist of the following groups: Black/African American, Asian,
2-14 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Hispanic

populations (regardless of race). U.S. Bureau of the Census categories have changed over time,

however, so some comparisons over time are not straightforward. For example, within the

2000 Census the previous “Asian/Pacific Islander” category was split into separate “Asian” and

“Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander” categories. For the purposes of this analysis, to

determine a total change between 1990-2000, the separate 2000 Census categories were combined. Moreover, for the purposes of this analysis, “minority” also includes all other non-white

racial categories within the 2000 Census such as “Some other race” and “Two or more races.”

The Miami-Herald newspaper recently reported that the data from the 2000 Census indicated

“Near-total ethnic and racial make-overs in some areas.” The article went on to identify that

20 cities and unincorporated communities went from a majority non-Hispanic white

population to a minority non-Hispanic population. These cities included Coral Gables, Cutler

Ridge, and Kendall. The article also stated that 15 cities and unincorporated communities went

from minority to majority Hispanic, including Miami Springs, Homestead, Key Biscayne, and

Miami Beach. Black/African American populations also significantly increased in many areas,

with North Miami going from 32 percent black in 1990 to more than 55 percent black in 2000

(U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b).

As shown in Figure 5, in 1990, the non-Hispanic white populations within Miami-Dade County

were generally concentrated in the areas immediately west and southwest of BISC as well as in

the far northern areas of the county. According to data from the 2000 Census, shown in Figure

6, within almost all the abovementioned areas, and especially those to the west and southwest,

the overall population of non-Hispanic whites has diminished. Black or African American

populations constituted a larger percentage of the population in some areas immediately west

of BISC as well as in the areas north of Miami proper.

Hurricane Andrew, the most destructive United States hurricane on record, hit south Florida

on August 24, 1992. Of the 180,000 people temporarily displaced by Hurricane Andrew, many

stayed with relatives in Broward County and when insurance monies were issued, many stayed

permanently. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, between July 1992 and July 1993,

Broward’s population rose by 41,032, an increase of approximately 80 percent in excess of the

previous 12 months. While non-Hispanic whites were more likely to have left the county

altogether, Hispanics displaced by Hurricane Andrew tended to move to the heavily Latino

communities of suburban west-central and northwest Miami-Dade County, whereas

Blacks/African Americans tended to rebuild homes on their existing lots in South Miami-Dade

(Miami Herald 2002).

As outlined in Table 2.3, of the total population within Florida as of 2000 (15,982,378 persons),

97.6 percent of the population was classified to be of one race and 2.3 percent of two or more

races. Of those persons of one race, 78.0 percent were white, 14.6 percent were black or African American, 0.3 percent were American Indian or Native Alaskan, 1.7 percent were Asian, 0.1

percent were native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 3.0 percent were classified as “Some

other race.” Also, as shown in Table 2.3 and Figure 7, of the total population of Miami-Dade

County as of 2000 (2,253,362 persons), 96.2 percent of the population was classified to be of

one race and 3.8 percent of two or more races. Of those persons of one race, 69.7 percent were


















	







































 !"

 !#

 !$%

 !"%

 

	

&
 

 	



'('

 )

*+

)

,




)

# - #   	


 





 !




	

				





	






N National Park Service 2-15


. )/"---0122
3/"--

---- - ---- &

.45-/---67.!-/---8

'('	9(9*1,:

;<(;91,:

 )

 

 

)


	<
 

)
3,
)




!=

%	!-)

	%-)

"	-)

	"-)

-	-)
S#

S# S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

Hialeah

Opa-locka

Homestead

Sweetwater

North Miami

Miami Beach

South Miami

Coral Gables

Miami Springs

North Miami Beach

/(1

/(1

/(41

State Hwy 821

StateHwy 874

State Hwy 836

State Hwy 826

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Florida City

Key

Biscayne

MIAMI

Biscayne National Park

Everglades

National Park

Thompson

Park

7 0 7 Miles

Figure 6

Non-White Minority as a

Percentage of Total Population:

Miami-Dade County 2000 Census

00034 Biscayne/GIS/apr/nonwhite_census2000.apr 7/12/02

2-16 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

40000 0 40000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 40,000' (1:480,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

Biscayne National Park

#S Cities

Highway

Parks

Non White Minority as

a Percentage of Total Population

LEGEND

81 +

61 - 80 Percent

41 - 60 Percent

21 - 40 Percent

11 - 20 Percent

0 - 10 Percent

BROWARD COUNTY
National Park Service 2-17

white, 20.3 percent were black or African American, 0.2 percent were American Indian or

Alaska Native, 1.4 percent were Asian, 0.0 were native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 4.6

percent were classified as “Some other race.”

Table 2.3. Florida and Miami-Dade County, Population by Ethnicity and Race, 2000

Miami-Dade

County 

Florida

State

Total Population 2,253,362 15,982,378

One Race 96.2% 97.6%

White 69.7% 78.0%

Black or African American 20.3% 14.6%

American Indian, Alaskan Native 0.2% 0.3%

Asian 1.4% 1.7%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.1%

Some Other Race 4.6% 3.0%

Two or More Races 3.8% 2.3%

Hispanic origin, any race 57.3% 16.8%

Total Minority Pop 79.3% 34.6%

Total Non-Minority Pop (Non-Hispanic

White)

20.7% 65.4%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b 

Figure 7. Miami-Dade County Population by Race, 2000

 

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b

According to the 2000 Census, persons considered to be of Hispanic or Latino origin (of any

race) constituted 16.7 percent (2,682,715 persons) of the total population of Florida. Within

Miami-Dade County, this figure rose to 57.3 percent (1,291,737 persons). As of 2000, persons
2-18 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

of Hispanic or Latino origin constituted the most populous ethnic group within Miami-Dade

County. The county also contained the largest proportion of Hispanic or Latino populations

within any of Florida’s 15 most populous counties (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b).

Between 1990-2000, the Hispanic population of Florida rose from 12.2 percent of the

population in 1990 to 16.8 percent of the population in 2000. Numerically, the Hispanic

population increased by 70.4 percent between 1990-2000. While non-Hispanic whites

constituted 73.2 percent (9,475,326 persons) of Florida’s population in 1990, as of 2000 this

proportion had decreased to 65.4 percent (10,458,509 persons). The non-Hispanic white

population of Florida numerically increased 12.0 percent between 1990-2000 (U.S. Bureau of

the Census 2001b).

The total minority population figures for Florida in 1990, represented as all non-white or

Hispanic persons, numbered 26.7 percent of the total population (3,462,600 persons) and had

risen to 34.5 percent of the population as of 2000 (5,523,869 persons). The total minority

population within Florida numerically increased by 59.5 percent (2,061,269 persons). 

Miami-Dade County also experienced considerable change over this period, as shown in Table

2.4. Non-Hispanic whites constituted 31.36 percent of Miami-Dade County’s population in

1990 (588,063 persons), and this proportion had decreased to 20.7 percent as of 2000 (455,772

persons). The non-Hispanic white population numerically decreased 77.4 percent between

1990-2000. The total minority population figures for Miami-Dade County in 1990, represented

as all non-white or Hispanic persons, numbered 69.64 percent of the total population

(1,349,031 persons) and had risen to 79.3 percent of the population as of 2000 (1,787,590

persons). The total minority population within Miami-Dade County numerically increased by

32.5 percent (438,559 persons) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b). 

As outlined above, as a proportion of the population, non-Hispanic white populations within

Miami-Dade County have decreased significantly in the last decade from 31.6 percent to 20.7

percent. Non-Hispanic black or African American populations have shown a minimal increase

from 13.1 to 14.1 percent over the same time period with other racial groups such as Asians and

Native Americans continuing to constitute a relatively small proportion (less than 6.5 percent)

of a growing population with a significantly expanding Hispanic and Latino populace. MiamiDade County has the highest, both numerically and proportionally, Hispanic and Latino

population within any of the 15 largest counties or incorporated areas of Florida. Figure 8

illustrates the Hispanic-Non-Hispanic population split in 2000.

As shown in Figure 9, in 1990, Hispanic populations tended to be concentrated in the areas

immediately west and northwest of Miami, yet the map also shows that from North Miami

Beach to Florida City, persons of Hispanic origin constituted a significant percentage of the

population. As shown in Figure 10, 2000 Census data indicate that while these concentrations

have changed somewhat, a general pattern of increased density of Hispanic populations within

the County is evident, again generally to the north and west of Miami.
National Park Service 2-19

Table 2.4. Miami-Dade County Race and Ethnicity, 1990-2000

Miami-Dade County 1990 2000

Percent

Change

(Numerical)

Total Population 1,937,094 2,253,362 16.32%

(316,269)

One Race 95.06%

(1,841,432)

96.2%

(2,167,940)

17.73%

(326,508)

White 73.06%

(1,415,346)

69.7%

(1,570,558)

10.96%

155,212

Black or African American 20.56%

(398,424)

20.3%

(457,214)

14.75%

(58,790)

American Indian, Alaskan Native 0.15%

(2,889)

0.2%

(4,365)

51.09%

(1,476)

Asian* 1.25%

(24,353)

1.4%

(31,753)

30.38%

(7,400)

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander*

>0.1%

(420)

>0.1%

(799)

90.2%

(379)

Other Race 4.93%

(95,662) n/a n/a

Some Other Race n/a 4.6%

(103,251) n/a

Two or More Races n/a 3.8%

(85,422) n/a

Hispanic origin, any race 49.0%

(949,700)

57.3% 

(1,291,737)

36.0%

(342,037)

Total Minority Pop 69.64%

(1,349,031)

79.3%

(1,787,590)

32.5%

(438,559)

Total Non-Minority Pop 

(White Non-Hispanic)

31.36%

(588,063)

20.7% 

(455,772)

-77.4%

(132,291)

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b

*Within the 2000 Census the “Asian/Pacific Islander” category was split into separate “Asian” 

 and “Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander” categories.

Figure 8. Miami-Dade County Population by Ethnicity, 2000

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b 

 
S#

S# S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

Hialeah

Opa-locka

Homestead

Sweetwater

North Miami

Miami Beach

South Miami

Coral Gables

Miami Springs

North Miami Beach

/(1

/(1

/(41

StateHwy821

State Hwy874

State Hwy 836

State Hwy 826

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Florida City

Key

Biscayne

MIAMI

Biscayne National Park Everglades

National Park

Thompson

Park

7 0 7 Miles

Figure 9

Hispanic Population as a

Percentage of Total Population:

Miami-Dade County 1990 Census

00034 Biscayne/GIS/hispanic.apr 12/22/00

2-20 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

40000 0 40000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 40,000' (1:480,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

BROWARD COUNTY

Biscayne National Park

#S Cities

Highway

Parks

Hispanic Population as

a Percentage of Total Population

LEGEND

81 +

61 - 80 Percent

41 - 60 Percent

21 - 40 Percent

11 - 20 Percent

0 - 10 Percent
S#

S# S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

Hialeah

Opa-locka

Homestead

Sweetwater

North Miami

Miami Beach

South Miami

Coral Gables

Miami Springs

North Miami Beach

/(1

/(1

/(41

State Hwy 821

State Hwy874

State Hwy 836

State Hwy 826

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Florida City

Key

Biscayne

MIAMI

Biscayne National Park

Everglades

National Park

Thompson

Park

7 0 7 Miles

Figure 10

Hispanic Population as a

Percentage of Total Population:

Miami-Dade County 2000 Census

00034 Biscayne/GIS/apr/hispanic_census2000.apr 7/12/02

 National Park Service 2-21

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

40000 0 40000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 40,000' (1:480,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

BROWARD COUNTY

Biscayne National Park

#S Cities

Highway

Parks

Hispanic Population as

a Percentage of Total Population

LEGEND

81 +

61 - 80 Percent

41 - 60 Percent

21 - 40 Percent

11 - 20 Percent

0 - 10 Percent
2-22 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Over the last 40 years, Florida’s ethnic composition has changed dramatically. In 1960, 81

percent of the state’s population was comprised of non-Hispanic Whites. By far the largest

minority was comprised of Blacks, accounting for 17 percent of the state’s total population.

Less than 2 percent of all Floridians were Hispanic. During the 30-year period between 1960

and 1990, Florida’s population more than doubled in size. Although the state’s non-Hispanic

white and black populations almost doubled in numbers, the Hispanic population increased

enormously in size, growing over 16 times to comprise 12 percent of Florida’s population as of

1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 1992). 

Age and Gender

The age and gender population distribution of Miami-Dade County and surrounding areas, as

indicated by 2000 Census data, is presented in Table 2.5 below. Historically, adults age 65 and

older have been in the range of 14 to 16 percent of the total population. Results of the 2000

Census indicated that overall, the percentage of retirement age adults was decreasing in the

Miami-Dade area. The age distribution of the Miami-Dade County population is described

below and compared to that of Florida and the surrounding counties of Broward, Collier, and

Monroe, between the years of 1990 and 2000. 

Table 2.5. Age Distribution in 2000

Age Florida 

MiamiDade

County

Broward 

County

Collier

County 

Monroe 

County

Under 18

years

22.8% 

(3,646,340)

24.8% 

(559,213)

23.6%

(382,929)

19.1%

(49,941)

17.1%

(13,605) 

18-64 years 59.6% 

(9,528,441)

61.8% 

(1,393,597)

60.3%

(978,980)

55.7%

(139,923)

68.3%

(54,336)

65+ years 17.6%

 (2,807,597)

13.3% 

(300,552)

16.1%

(261,109)

24.5%

(61,513)

14.6%

(11,648) 

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b

According to 2000 Census data, the population of Florida, 65 years and older, totaled

17.6 percent, slightly higher than that of Miami-Dade County, which totaled 13.3 percent.

Conversely, statewide, those under 18 years old totaled 22.8 percent, slightly lower than that

of Miami-Dade County, which totaled 24.8 percent. Based on the above figures, the median age

for the state was calculated to be 38.7 years, marginally higher than that of the county,

calculated to be 35.6 years. 

As of 2000, the population of Broward, Collier, and Monroe counties, 65 years and older,

totaled 16.1 percent, 24.5 percent, and 14.6 percent, respectively. Those under 18 years totaled

23.6 percent, 19.1 percent, and 17.1 percent, respectively. The median age in 2000 was

calculated to be 37.8, 44.1, and 42.6 years, respectively.

When compared to the 1990 Census, Florida’s population, aged 65 years and older, numerically

increased by 18.5 percent, and those aged below18 years numerically increased by 27.2 percent,

as shown in Table 2.6. Proportionally, those aged over 65 years and below18 years exhibited

a decrease of 0.6 percent and an increase of 0.6 percent, respectively. The median age
National Park Service 2-23

decreased by 2.2 years during the decade. During the last decade the population of MiamiDade County, 65 years and older, numerically increased by 10.95 percent, and those under 18

years numerically increased by 19.4 percent. Proportionally, the population of the county aged

over 65 years and under18 years exhibited a decrease of 0.7 percent and an increase of 0.6

percent, respectively. The median age of the county increased by 1.3 years during the decade.

Table 2.6. Numerical Population Increase from 1990

Age Florida 

MiamiDade

County

Broward 

County

Collier

County 

Monroe 

County

Under 18

years

27.2%

(781,840)

19.4%

(90,982)

49.4 %

(126,657)

63.7 %

(19,449)

0.9 %

(125)

18-64 years 14.1%

(1,826,183)

10.1%

(195,319)

19.2%

(240,850)

34.7 % 

(52,747)

3.0% 

(2,323)

65+ years 18.5%

(438,934)

10.9 %

(29,689)

0.38 %

(1,011)

43.8 %

(26,963)

5.6 %

(651)

 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 2001b

When compared to the results from the 1990 U.S. Bureau of the Census, the population of

Broward, Collier, and Monroe Counties, 65 years and older, numerically increased by 0.38

percent, 43.8 percent, and 5.6 percent, respectively. Those under 18 years increased by 49.4

percent, 63.7 percent, and 0.9 percent, respectively. Proportionally, between 1990 and 2000,

the population of the Broward County aged over 65 years and those aged under18 years

exhibited a decrease of 4.6 percent and an increase of 2.8 percent, respectively. Within Collier

County, the figures showed an increase of 1.8 percent and a decrease of 1.3 percent,

respectively. Monroe County showed a decrease of 1.2 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.

The median age change between 1990 and 2000 of Broward County remained at 37.8 years, with

the median ages in Monroe and Collier Counties increasing by 3.3 years and 3.6 years,

respectively.

The above statistics, when coupled with the other demographic data, depict a changing region

with the most dynamic changes being felt within Miami-Dade County. Miami-Dade County

has the lowest median age among the contiguous counties and is lower than the state. The

under 18 population within the county exhibited a growth rate of 19.4 percent, almost double

that of the 10.95 percent increase of the population 65 years and over. Such conclusions are

also borne out by the proportional decrease of persons over the age of 65 within the population

of Miami-Dade County (-0.7 percent) and the rise of those under 18 (0.6 percent) (U.S. Bureau

of the Census 2001b).

The 1990 U.S. Census indicated that males constituted 47.9 percent of the Miami-Dade County

population and females 52.1 percent. As of 2000, the percentage of males in the total

population had increased to 48.3 percent and females decreased to 51.7 percent. In

comparison, males constituted 48.3 percent of the Florida population and females 51.7 percent.

Similarly, as of 2000, the percentage of males in the total population had increased to 48.8

percent and females decreased to 51.2 percent.
2-24 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Immigration and Emigration

Florida

Between 1980 and 1990, U.S. Bureau of the Census data indicated that Florida’s foreign-born

population grew by 57 percent (from 1,058,732 to 1,662,601 persons) and accounted for 19.7

percent of the overall population growth. As of 1990, this foreign-born share constituted 12.9

percent of the state’s population, much higher than the 7.9 percent national average. A total of

81.4 percent (1,335,357 persons) of Florida’s total foreign-born population in 1990 lived in 6

of its 67 counties (Federation for American Immigration Reform [FAIR] 2001a). Miami-Dade

County by itself was home to 52.6 percent of the total in 1990 (874,569 persons) (FAIR 2001b).

The 2000 Census recorded 2,670,828 foreign-born residents in the state, constituting 16.7 percent

of the state’s overall population. This figure represented an increase of 60.6 percent above the 1990

foreign-born population of 1,662,601 residents. The amount of increase was the fourth highest in

the country. However, the rate of increase in the foreign-born population was not among the 25

highest in the country (FAIR 2001a).

A comparison of the increase in the immigrant population from 1990 with the change in the

overall population during the same period shows that immigrant settlement directly accounted

for about one-third (33.1 percent) of the State’s overall population increase over that decade.

The 2000 Census found that 38.6 percent of Florida’s foreign-born population had arrived in

the state since 1990. This demonstrates the effects of the current mass immigration, although

it is a lower share than the national average (43.7 percent).

As of 1990, Florida had the third largest number of immigrants and the fourth highest

concentration of immigrants nationally (FAIR 2001a). Additionally, immigrants born in Cuba

made up 30 percent of the state’s total immigrant population. Several national groups showed

sharp numerical increases between 1980-1990, including Nicaraguans (874+ percent), Haitians

(382+ percent), and Mexicans (304+ percent). Of the rest of Florida’s 10 largest national

groups, only Italians (10th) had registered a decline over the decade (-2 percent). Populations

of European immigrants were registering declines elsewhere in the country over the same

period. Some of this increase may have been attributable to re-migration from elsewhere in the

country (FAIR 2001a). 

Immigration figures from 1990 also reflected many of the illegal aliens who had arrived earlier

but had since gained legal status. With regard to Florida this mainly applied to Haitians,

Mexicans, and Nicaraguans (FAIR 2001a).

Table 2.7 shows the main nationalities of legal immigration within Florida during Fiscal Year

1991-98. Averaging more than 15,000 persons per year, immigration to Florida was dominated

by Cubans. During this eight-year period, more than one-fifth (20.2 percent) of all immigrants

since 1990 came from Cuba. Haitian immigration numbered more than 9,000 per year, and

Mexicans more than 7,500 per year. Along with Cubans, these national groups accounted for

more than two-fifths (42.1 percent) of all new “green card” recipients in Florida since 1990.

Lesser groups included Jamaicans, Colombians, Nicaraguans, Dominicans, and Canadians.
National Park Service 2-25

Also, with more than 1,500 immigrants per year were Peru, the Philippines, Vietnam, China

(including Hong Kong and Taiwan), and India (FAIR 2001a). 

Table 2.7. Florida Legal Immigration, Most Prominent Nationalities, 1991-1998

Country

Total 

Fiscal Year 91-98 Average Per Year Percent of Total

Cuba 122,072 15,259 20.16

Haiti 72,982 9,122 12.05

Mexico 60,030 7,504 9.91

Jamaica 37,451 4,681 6.19

Colombia 27,094 3,387 4.47

Nicaragua 17,027 2,128 2.81

Dominican Rep. 16,266 2,033 2.69

Peru 15,381 1,923 2.54

Canada 14,165 1,771 2.34

Philippines 12,638 1,580 2.09

United Kingdom 12,416 1,552 2.05

Vietnam 9,270 1,159 1.53

Other 188,686 23,585 31.16

Total 605,478 75,684 100%

Source: FAIR 2001a

The 2000 Census found that 38.6 percent of Florida’s foreign-born population had arrived in

the state since 1990. A comparison of the increase in the immigrant population from 1990 with

the change in the overall population during the same period shows that immigrant settlement

directly accounted for about one-third (33.1 percent) of the state’s overall population increase

over that decade. The effect of immigration on population change is still greater when the

children of the immigrants are born here after their parents’ arrival and are included with their

parents in the calculation.

Miami-Dade County

According to the 1990 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Miami-Dade County had the highest

concentration of immigrants of any major metropolitan area in the country, with 45.1 percent

of the county’s population (874,569 persons) indicating birth outside of the United States

compared to 15 percent for the remainder of Florida. The number of foreign-born residents

was the second largest for any county in the country. The share of the foreign-born population

that reported being naturalized United States citizens was 36.1 percent, slightly lower than the

national average. The city with the nation’s highest concentration of immigrants was Hialeah

(with 70.4 percent foreign born). Second in the nation was the city of Miami (59.7 percent).

The city of Miami Beach ranked sixth in the country with, 44.8 percent (FAIR 2001b). 

Although Miami-Dade County during the past decade exhibited a growth rate comparable to

other metropolitan areas of its size (23.5 percent), the major source of this growth has been

through immigration, primarily among peoples of Hispanic origin from the Caribbean and

Central America. According to preliminary census data, from 1990-99, Miami-Dade County

added 337,174 immigrants, a rate of increase of 17.4 percent over the decade. The average

annual number of new immigrants since 1990 has been more than 37,000 (FAIR 2001a). An

increasing proportion of the county’s population is composed of immigrants and the rapidity
2-26 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

of this change has overtaken the population composition of any other urban area in the country

(FAIR 2001b).

If immigration numbers are ignored, Miami-Dade County is theoretically declining in

population due to residents leaving for other parts of the country. According to the 2000

Census, while Miami-Dade County showed a population increase of 12.3 percent between

1990-99, the outflow of residents was so great (236,078) that if it were not for newly arriving

immigrants (about 337,200), the county’s population would be shrinking despite a net increase

in residents and despite natural change (129,000 more births than deaths).

The net international migration data detailed above actually understate the impact of

immigration on a locality because only the arrival of immigrants from abroad is actually

recorded–not those moving within the country, and the children born to immigrants after their

arrival are not part of the immigrant settlement data. These populations simply become part

of domestic population change (FAIR 2001b).

In 1998, The Washington Post reported that “many of Miami’s white population are leaving

metropolitan areas because of the large influx of immigrants.” Citing the research of University

of Miami Population Studies Center demographer William Frey, the article stated that the ratio

of those in the exodus to new immigrants has been “about one-to-one.” Reasons given for this

exodus included “ethnic change as well as home prices, crime, schools and congestion.” Some

of those leaving said that Miami felt to them like “a foreign country” (Booth 1998).

In summary, Florida is a demographically changing region with the most dynamic changes

being felt within Miami-Dade County. The projected population trend for Florida, and MiamiDade County in particular, is continued rapid population growth. Ethnically, Miami-Dade

County is diverse, with significant minority populations present. Hispanic or Latino origin constituted the most populous ethnic group within Miami-Dade County, with many communities

going from majority non-Hispanic to majority Hispanic over the last decade. Conversely, NonHispanic white populations within the county have decreased significantly in the last decade.

The county’s population is getting younger with the lowest median age among the contiguous

counties and lower than the state and the decreasing percentage of retirement age adults.

Immigration is a significant population factor in both the state and the county. An increasing

proportion of the county’s population is composed of immigrants, and currently constitutes

the highest concentration of immigrants of any major metropolitan area in the country.

2.2.3 Economy, Employment, and Income 

This section presents an examination of the wider economy of Miami-Dade County and the

comparison of a variety of statistics over the past decade. Also included is the identification of

both present and future trends that may have ramifications for the interaction of the

surrounding area with BISC. Areas examined include overviews of the major economic sectors

within the region, employment within specific industries, per capita personal income and

median household income, and unemployment levels over time.

Miami-Dade County had a net value of production (Gross Regional Product) that reached

$64.9 billion in 1998 (Beacon Council 1999). Major economic sectors contributing to this
National Park Service 2-27

production include tourism, international trade, services, retail, government, transportation,

health care, real estate and development, finance/insurance, and agriculture. Miami also

functions as the gateway to markets in the Caribbean, Mexico, and Latin America. This Latin

America-Miami connection is an important component of the overall economic structure of

Miami-Dade County. With approximately half of its population bilingual, Miami has developed strong ties with Central and South America and the Caribbean. The area is considered

a gateway to Latin America and is a major destination for Spanish-speaking tourists, shoppers,

financiers, and entrepreneurs (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2001).

Historically, employment within Miami-Dade County has been dominated by a number of

major economic sectors–among them industries like construction, agriculture, tourism, and

trade. While the services sector historically has represented a significant element of the local

economy, an important recent trend within the county has been the continued growth of more

service-orientated industries such as banking, real estate, accounting, and retail. As shown in

Figure 11, in 1999, the service sector was the largest employer in Miami-Dade County, followed

by trade and government (31.05 percent, 26.29 percent, and 14.39 percent, respectively)

(FDLES 2000FDLES 2000 )

Figure 11. Miami-Dade County Total Employment by Major Industry Categories, 1999

 Source: Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Office of Labor Market Statistics, 2000

Between 1990 and 1999, employment levels within the major industrial sectors in Florida grew

by 30 percent, compared to a lesser rate of 9.2 percent within Miami-Dade County (FDLES

2000). Significant differences in job growth existed between Miami-Dade County and Florida

for the period. While the overall number of jobs in agriculture; construction/mining; and

finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) increased for the state, Miami-Dade County

experienced an employment decrease among these sectors. Additionally, employment in

manufacturing decreased more dramatically in Miami-Dade County (-20.5 percent) than it did

in Florida as a whole (-5.9 percent). The service sector experienced the most significant growth
2-28 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

across the state (60 percent) but considerably less within Miami-Dade County (23.9 percent).

This sector was, however, the fastest growing across the state and within Miami-Dade County

for the period (FDLES 2000)FDLES 2000) . In addition, the entertainment industry, regional

film and television production, music, and location-based entertainment have shown marked

growth (Beacon Council 2002a). Employment levels are expected to continue to increase, with

growth shifting from the goods-producing sector as manufacturing declines due to

international competition (Rust 1998Rust 1998 ). 

Tourism

The combination of a subtropical climate, beaches, various recreational attractions, diverse

range of shopping and nightlife, and Everglades and Biscayne National Parks, continues to

attract multitudes of vacationers and convention events globally. The tourism industry is one

of the driving forces behind the county’s economy and has been referred to as “the

community’s major economic engine” (Beacon Council 2002b). For more than a century, it has

been one of the largest employers in Miami-Dade County. No other industries are considered

as important to the economic health and well-being of the county. Tourism from Europe has

increased significantly in the past two decades. Overnight visitors (leisure, business, medical,

etc.) contribute more than one-third of annual sales tax revenues and support industry-related

expenditures through special taxes. The Beacon Council predicted 10 million overnight visitors

and more than $13 billion in total expenditures for 2000. However, the number of visitors

decreased in 2000, down 2.2 million in 1998 and 1999, reflecting a general trend when

compared to the rest of the nation (Beacon Council 2002b).

In the 1980s, civil disturbance and the sudden unrestricted, massive migration from the Port of

Mariel, Cuba, prompted Time magazine’s “Paradise Lost” article and a significant decline in the

number of visitors to Miami-Dade County. In response, the hitherto fragmented industry

united to create the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau to meet this major threat

to the industry’s prosperity.

Agriculture

Miami-Dade is the second largest agricultural producing county in the state after Palm Beach,

and 39th out of 3,076 nationally, with total annual agricultural sales of $416.5 million in 1997

(USDA 2001USDA 1997 ). Agriculture in Miami-Dade County has an economic impact of

approximately $842 million annually and employs roughly 23,000 people (Degner et al.

1997Degner, et. al. 1996 ). Southern Dade County is renowned for its tropical fruits and

container plants, and its harvest of corn, tomatoes, and other traditional and specialty

vegetables. Although agriculture is a multibillion-dollar contributor to the state and the

regional economy, the industry is facing both economic and environmental challenges.

Agricultural acreage in Florida and across the nation has decreased as local, regional, and state

economies have grown and diversified. Between 1982 and 1992, the number of acres

designated as agricultural in south Florida decreased by 16 percent from 12.8 million acres to

10.7 million acres (U.S. Department of Commerce 1984, 1994United States Dept. of Commerce

1984, 1994 ). This reduction stems mainly from increasing levels of urban sprawl, soil

subsidence, and the conversion of some agricultural lands to other uses (South Florida

Ecosystem Restoration Task Force 1998 Working Group 1998 ). 
National Park Service 2-29

Citrus has been produced commercially in Florida since the mid-1800s. It is produced

predominantly across the southern two-thirds of the Florida Peninsula, where there is a low

probability of damaging winter freeze events. Over the last several decades, the geographic

distribution of citrus production within the state has migrated southward in response to a series

of freezes in the north-central region of the state in the 1980s (Hodges et al. 2001).

On a wider scale, agriculture within the region, specifically the tomato industry, has been

negatively affected by international trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA). This is due to significant implications on the competitiveness of

domestic products and remains a significant issue for many industries within the region. In

spite of these obstacles, the agricultural industry continues to demonstrate an ability to adjust

by concentrating on international markets, specialty products, and domestic niche marketing

(Governors Commission for a Sustainable South Florida [GCSSF] 1995GCSSF 1995 ).

Merchandise Trade

A primary economic sector within the region is merchandise trade, of which south Florida has

emerged as a leading hub within the global economy. Total trade through Miami’s Customs

District was $51.947 billion in 1999, up $230 million from 1998. Trade between the region and

Latin America remains substantial with Miami handling the majority of all U.S. trade with Latin

America. In 1999, 87.3 percent of Miami Customs District’s total exports occurred with Latin

American and Caribbean countries (Beacon Council 2002a, Beacon Council 2000).

Also, emerging trade with Europe and the Far East provides a crucial connection for the global

distribution of goods through the ports of south Florida (Loiry 1995), of which Miami in particular has emerged as a leader and a “gateway” for trade within this hemisphere and the greater

global economy. The Florida Department of Commerce estimates that each additional $1billion of foreign trade creates approximately 16,000 additional jobs within the region (Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Studies 1995, University of Massachusetts 1994 ).

International Business and Banks

In August 2000, the City of Miami was ranked the premiere U.S. city for doing business with

Latin America by América Economia magazine. Miami-Dade County has centers for over 500

international companies, such as Apple, AT&T, Airbus, American Express, Lucent

Technologies, IBM, General Electric, and Hewlett Packard. The county has 121 national and

international banks with $58.3 billion in total deposits. Additionally, the county is home to 13

Edge Act banks, 38 State-licensed foreign bank agencies, and 59 commercial banks and 11 thrift

institutions. The region is also a major international business hub, with 106 international

banking offices, 55 foreign consulates, and 25 foreign trade offices in 1995 (Starrett 1997).

Services

The services sector within Miami-Dade County is broad, encompassing professional services

from doctors, dentists, and teachers to mechanics, repairmen, laborers, and fast-food workers.

Tourist-related establishments, such as hotels, theme parks, and other recreational activities,

also figure highly within this sector. Although Miami-Dade County’s economy is diverse with
2-30 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

major components, including tourism, trade, transportation, and agriculture, recent employment growth has been concentrated within relatively low-paying service sector jobs. Overall,

the sector employed 448,984 persons in Miami-Dade County in 1999–a numerical increase of

10.78 percent since 1996. In 1999, the services industry provided 32.7 percent of total county

earnings compared to 30.2 percent of earnings in 1989.

Miami International Airport and the Port of Miami

Miami International Airport’s impact on local tourism, the cruise industry, international banking, trade, and commerce is estimated to total $13 billion annually (Miami International Airport

2001). Airports are of critical importance to the region’s tourist industry; an estimated 97 percent of Miami-Dade County’s overnight visitors arrive in south Florida by air (GCSSF 1995-

GCSSF 1995 ). Flights from Miami International Airport cover 152 cities on four continents.

The airport and related aviation industries contribute 196,000 direct and indirect jobs in south

Florida, a number roughly equivalent to one out of six jobs in the region. In 2000, the airport

serviced/carried 33.6 million passengers and had a weekday daily average of approximately

90,000 passengers. Freight totals for 2000 amounted to 1,717,511 United States Tons (1,430,624

U.S. Tons international, 286,887 U.S. Tons domestic) (Miami International Airport 2001). 

As the third largest U.S. airport after John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Los Angeles International

(LAX) for international passengers, and as shown in Table 2.8, Miami International Airport

ranks in the top 10 airports worldwide in nearly every category. 

Table 2.8. Miami International Airport Rankings for 1999

Domestic

Ranking

International

Ranking 

International Freight 1 6 st th

International Passengers 3 14 rd th

Total Freight 4 7 th th

Total Cargo (Freight + Mail) 4 7 th th

Total Passengers 9 14 th th

 Source: Miami International Airport 2001

The Port of Miami is the number one cruise port in the world and also ranks as a top cargo port

worldwide. The port’s operating revenues increased to an estimated $64.5 million in 1999. The

port’s fiscal health is important to the local economy, contributing in excess of $8 billion

annually and supporting 45,000 jobs (Port of Miami 2001). The port is home to approximately

twenty cruise ships–the largest home-ported cruise fleet in the world. The port also handles

more “mega ships”–vessels with a capacity in excess of 2,000 guests–than any other port in the

world (Port of Miami 2001Beacon Council 2000 ). The port handled 3,112,355 passengers in

1999 and, in that same year, 6.9 million tons of cargo moved through the port, with exports of

3,190,769 tons and imports of 3,739,603 tons. Miami has more than forty shipping lines

connecting 362 ports in 132 countries worldwide (Port of Miami 2001).

Education

The Dade County public school system is the fourth largest nationally, with 360,000 students
National Park Service 2-31

in the system. The total number of schools and centers is 318, including the Miami-Dade

Community College with five campuses. It is also the single largest employer within the

County, providing in excess of 35,000 jobs as of 2000.

A $1.5 billion capital improvement program for an expanding student population has been

initiated (Dade County K-12 District). The underlying social and economic conditions present

in the community can have an impact on education standards. The recent dramatic influx of

immigrants has resulted in a continually more diverse population ethnically and culturally.

Lack of fluency in English and overcrowded classrooms can generate factors that put pressure

on education. Similarly, high mobility can also detrimentally affect the education process

(Beacon Council 2002b).

Income and Employment

There are numerous ways to measure economic well-being. Economists frequently use income

as a key measurement. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) produces most of the income

statistics generated by the Federal Government, and researchers consider BEA data of high

quality, albeit slightly dated. To examine income levels over time within Miami-Dade County

and surrounding areas, two standard income indicators are used: Per Capita Personal Income

(PCPI) and Median Household Income. BEA defines PCPI as total personal income (income

received from employment, investments, and government transfer payments) divided by the

population. The U.S. Bureau of the Census defines Household Income as the sum of money

income received in the previous calendar year by all household members 15 years old and over,

including household members not related to the householder, people living alone, and others

in non-family households. The U.S. Bureau of the Census defines the median household income

as the figure that shows half of the households having higher annual incomes than this value, and

half having lower incomes.

As shown in Table 2.9, in 1999, Miami-Dade County had a per capita personal income of

$24,492, which was 7.9 percent below the Florida average of $26,593, and 12 percent below the

national average of $27,843 (Florida, in turn, was 4.4 percent below the national average). In

comparison, in 1990, the average per capita personal income within Miami-Dade County was

approximately 4.9 percent below that of Florida (which in turn was 1.4 percent above the

national average of $19,572).

Table 2.9. Income Indicators

1990 1999 1997 *

Per capita

personal

income

Median

household

income

Per capita

personal

income

Median

household 

income

Miami-Dade

County

$18,605 $26,909 $24,492 $30,000

Florida $19,832 $27,483 $26,593 $32,877

Broward $23,504 $23,530 $27,950 $37,832

Collier $27,871 $34,001 $38,916 $41,000

Monroe $23,028 $29,351 $33,654 $36,353

National Average $19,572 $30,056 $27,843 $37,005

*Model-based estimate (intercensal year estimate based on census statistical model)

Source: BEA 2000; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 2001b
2-32 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

In 1999, the counties contiguous to Miami-Dade County (Broward, Collier, and Monroe) had

per capita personal income levels of 14.1 percent, 58.9 percent, and 37.4 percent, respectively,

above that of Miami-Dade County (BEA 2000). This trend was evident in 1990, with Broward,

Collier, and Monroe Counties showing per capita personal income levels of 17.6 percent, 40.7

percent, and 16 percent, respectively, above that of Miami-Dade County. 

In 1999, the per capita personal income in Miami-Dade County ranked 20th in Florida by

county, whereas in 1990, the county ranked 15th in the state (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001a).

The average annual growth rate of per capita personal income within Miami-Dade County over

the past decade has been 3.1 percent (BEA 2000).

As of 1997 the median household income within Miami-Dade County, at $30,000, was 8.8

percent below that of the state (a census model-based estimate–the most recent figures currently

available). In comparison, in 1990, the median household income within Miami-Dade County

was approximately 4.3 percent below that of the State of Florida (which in turn was 8.6 percent

below the the national average of $30,056). Between 1990 and 1997, median household income

in Florida dropped from 8.2 percent to 11.2 percent below the national average.

In 1997, Broward, Collier, and Monroe Counties had median household income levels of 15.1

percent, 24.1 percent, and 10.6 percent, respectively, above that of Florida (U.S. Bureau of the

Census 2001a). This represented, particularly in the case of Broward and Monroe counties, a

significant change from 1990 when Broward, Collier, and Monroe counties had median

household income levels 14.3 percent below, 19.1 percent above, and 6.36 percent below,

respectively, that of Florida (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990).

As shown above, during the last decade, in relation to the national average, the per capita

personal income listed for Florida rose only slightly (1.0 percent) while the median household

income fell further (3.0 percent). Over the same period, per capita and median household

incomes within Miami-Dade County, both below the state average in 1990, also fell further (1.6

percent and 0.6 percent, respectively). Comparing Miami-Dade County with the national

averages, as of 1999, per capita incomes were 12.0 percent below the national average, and as of

1997 (the latest figures available), median household incomes were 18.9 percent below the

national average (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990).

There are a number of underlying factors that could contribute to the lower-than-average

income levels described above. One factor is the large population of younger individuals below

18 and between 18 to 24 years who earn significantly less than older groups. The other factor

is directly related to the prevalence and growth of low-wage service sector jobs and the inability

of the economy, in the face of an influx of immigration, to cope with the demands of a rapidly

growing population.

Employment

As shown in Table 2.10, while mirroring the national decline in unemployment levels during the

last decade, unemployment levels within Miami-Dade County have continuously ranked above

the State and national averages, and all contiguous counties. A significant factor leading to the

current employment scenario within Miami-Dade County is the shortage of low-skilled
National Park Service 2-33

positions in relation to the population seeking those low-skilled jobs. In effect, south Florida,

and Miami-Dade County in particular, with high levels of immigration has reached a saturation

point regarding low-skilled employment. Compounding these factors, due to specific

government initiatives, welfare rolls have to a degree shrunk, and many previously unemployed

residents are attempting to reenter the workforce. 

Table 2.10. Unemployment Levels 

1990 1995 1999 2000

MiamiDade7.8% 7.4% 5.8% 5.3%

Broward 5.6% 5.7% 4.1% 3.7%

Collier 5.3% 7.0% 3.7% 3.5%

Monroe 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 2.0%

Florida 6.0% 5.5% 3.9% 3.6%

United

States

5.6% 5.6% 4.2% 4.0%

Source: FDLES 2000

Mainly, however, large numbers of immigrants are seeking entry-level, low-skilled positions that

are just not available (Rust 1998Rust 1998 ). Essentially, while the services sector has grown

significantly, it has nonetheless contributed to both lower than average incomes and higher than

average unemployment rates within Miami-Dade County.

Major employers include the service industries (including tourism and visitor-serving),

international trade and commerce, and the government (Tables 2.11 and 2.12). As shown in

Table 2.13, the top employers in the county are within the public sector and include MiamiDade County Public Schools, Miami-Dade County, Federal Government, and the State of

Florida. In the private sector, top employers in the county include American Airlines; Jackson

Memorial Hospital; the University of Miami; BellSouth; Southern Bell; Motorola; Florida Power

and Light, Pratt and Whitney; American Express; and Publix and Winn Dixie supermarkets.

Table 2.11. Historical Distribution of Annual Non-agricultural 

Employment in Miami-Dade County

1990 1995 1998

Manufacturing 10.0 8.3 7.6

Durable 4.0 3.5 3.6

Non-durable 6.0 4.8 4.0

Construction 4.4 3.9 3.5

Transportation/Utilities 8.2 8.4 8.8

Trade 27.1 26.1 26.2

Wholesale 8.5 8.3 8.4

Retail 18.6 17.8 17.8

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8.0 7.1 6.8

Services 28.6 31.8 33.0

Government 13.7 14.2 14.1

Source: Computed from Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security,

BLS Annual Report on Employment, Hours, and Earnings, 1982-1998
2-34 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Table 2.12. Employment by Industry, Miami-Dade County, 1998

Employment

Distribution

of

Employment

Miami-Dade County 947,606 100%

Agriculture 11,485 1.2%

Mining 319 -

Construction 33,102 3.5%

Manufacturing 72,719 7.7%

Transportation / Utilities 84,452 8.9%

Wholesale Trade 76,910 8.1%

Retail Trade 170,023 17.9%

Finance Insurance and Real Estate 65,702 6.9%

Services 290,909 30.7%

Government 135,825 14.3%

 Source: FDLES, Office of Labor Market Statistics 2000

Table 2.13. Largest Employers in Miami-Dade County, 2000

Rank Employer Employees

1 Miami-Dade County Public Schools 35,469

2 Miami-Dade County 30,000

3 Federal Government 18,276

4 State of Florida 18,100

5 American Airlines 9,000

6 Jackson Memorial Hospital 8,191

7 Precision Response Corporation 8,000

8 University of Miami 7,800

9

Baptist Health Systems of South

Florida 7,500

10 BellSouth 4,240

 Source: Beacon Council 2002a

Employment in manufacturing and goods-producing industries has historically provided

significantly higher wages than those in service-oriented enterprises (GCSSF 1995GCSSF 1995).

Average annual salaries in south Florida for 1997 were approximately $25,000 for jobs in the

services sector, compared to approximately $33,000 within the manufacturing sector, $36,000

within the mining industry, and $27,000 within the construction industry (FDLES 1997FDLES

1997 ). Since this recent job growth has tended to be concentrated in the comparatively lowpaying services sector, it may partly explain the dichotomy between the relative levels of employment increases and the fall in incomes over the same time period within Miami-Dade County.

In summary, the major economic sectors in Miami Dade County include tourism, international

trade, services, retail, government, transportation, health care, real estate and development,

finance/insurance, and agriculture. Miami also functions as the gateway to markets in the

Caribbean, Mexico, and Latin America. The presence of many world class recreational

attractions make the tourism industry one of the driving forces behind the county’s economy

and is one of the largest employers in the county.

Major employers include the service (including tourism and visitor-serving) industries,

international trade and commerce, and the government. Countywide employment in
National Park Service 2-35

manufacturing has recently decreased dramatically along with the continued growth of more

service-orientated industries. The county shows lower-than-average income levels partly due

to a large younger population earning significantly less than older groups and the prevalence and

growth of low-wage service-sector jobs and a rapidly growing population. Unemployment levels

within Miami-Dade County have continuously ranked above the state and national averages,

primarily due to a shortage of low-skilled positions in relation to the population seeking those

low-skilled jobs.
2-36 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment
National Park Service 3-1

3.0 EXISTING LITERATURE: THE SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT OF SOUTH

FLORIDA AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

Boundaries, edges, and frontiers are phrases used in existing literature to characterize the complexity of the Miami-Dade sociocultural context. It is one of the most ethnically diverse and

culturally complex metropolitan areas in the United States, as expressed in the multi-ethnic

populations that include American Indians, Cubans, African Americans, and Hispanics from

the Caribbean and Central America. This section provides an overview of the ethnographic literature regarding cultural groups that account for the major elements of the sociocultural context of Miami-Dade County. The focus is on identifying and summarizing prominent sociocultural characteristics of groups in communities surrounding BISC. For each group discussed,

there is a brief review of social history and demographics followed by an overview of major

themes concerning culture and lifestyle and their implications for BISC resource managers.

3.1 Regional Commonalities 

The existing ethnographic literature emphasizes the differences and multicultural elements

among Miami-Dade County’s population. Underlying these discussions of particular ethnic

groups, there is also discussion of some commonalities in the region, but these topics are less

developed than the cultural characteristics of particular populations. Three topics regarding

commonality stand out in the existing literature: tourism culture, neighborhood segregation,

and the relationship between environment and shared activities.

3.1.1 Tourism Culture

Even before Flagler built the railroad south into Miami and the Keys, south Florida had been

a tourist destination. The railroad only made it easier for those from the northeast and

elsewhere in the United States to visit the beaches and enjoy the tropical climate of south

Florida. Although always promoted as a tropical paradise, the reality of insects and summer

heat and humidity sometimes discouraged tourists. Insect control and air conditioning changed

tourists’ minds: what had once been the fantasy and playland for the very rich soon became a

destination and residence for a wider range of people seeking the promise of the Florida

getaway. Tourists, seasonal residents, and others just passing through contributed to the

construction of a community and region that caters to their needs. Theme parks, Seminole

alligator wrestling shows, condominiums, national parks, and retirement communities became

part of the social and cultural landscape of south Florida. In fact, tourism in south Florida has

influenced the development of service industry jobs and the demand for unskilled and semiskilled labor (cf. Strong 1991). As important, Miami cultivated an image of a restful but exciting

place blessed by exotic natural resources. This image was bolstered by the vacation homes of

some of the wealthy and powerful families of American industry, such as the Honeywells, who

built homes and compounds on places such as Boca Chita Key. Yet, the less wealthy and

powerful also sought vacation or retirement homes in south Florida, resulting in a surge in

condominium building and the growth of retirement communities. The image and reality of

Florida also attracted those escaping long northeast and midwest winters and college students

seeking a Spring Break vacation spot. 
3-2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The tropical paradise of the early years of Miami, and those who visited the Keys and waters

of Biscayne Bay for fishing, frolicking, and other types of fun, began to see a shift after the first

Cuban refugees began to arrive on American shores. Tension developed surrounding images

of an ideal past and the current reality of Miami-Dade County. These tensions were sufficient

for some residents to leave and search elsewhere for the ideal Florida dream (Portes and

Stepick 1993). However, this influx of Caribbean and Central American immigrants and

refugees has also developed a new cultural as well as a new economic reality. Miami has

become not simply a tourist destination, but it also functions as the capital of the Caribbean.

There are transnational corporations that cater to the Caribbean market and there are

immigrants, such as Haitians, who have consolidated strong economic ties with their homeland.

This emerging social context will interact with the tourist culture of Miami and south Florida

to produce a new iteration of community culture. Yet, as these new iterations emerge, there

remains a strong base of tourism culture supported by images of an exotic place with a tropical

climate, only now with a Disneyworld thrown into the mix. The overall cultural milieu in south

Florida has tourism values, beliefs, images, and socioeconomic realities that give this region its

distinctive character. 

3.1.2 Neighborhood Segregation

Residential neighborhood segregation is a feature commonly noted in the literature about

Miami-Dade County (e.g., Mohl 1991; Dunn 1997; Portes and Stepick 1993). Blacks live in

particular neighborhoods, and the residents of Little Havana, Little Haiti, Little Managua, and

other clearly defined ethnic neighborhoods have a history of keeping to themselves. The social

history of Blacks in Miami clearly shows that the Caucasian power structure in Miami made

specific policies designed to contain Blacks in certain parts of the city. This type of residential

segregation is characteristic of the region. It promotes continuity between community social

structure and local culture. That is, the values, beliefs, and lifestyles people have are the ones

shared by their neighbors and often supported by community or neighborhood specific

organizations, such as those in many Cuban neighborhoods. This continuity of social space and

cultural traditions supports the creation of enclaves and the lifestyles of ethnic groups that

might otherwise experience stronger pressures for acculturation. Yet, neighborhood

segregation is not always voluntary, as indicated in the experiences of Miami Blacks (Dunn

1997), and it can also engender “have” and “have-not” sentiments. In this type of social and

cultural environment, state or county parks or even national parks such as BISC may not be

perceived as “common” spaces open to all, but rather as territory that is unknown or places that

“others” gather. This type of neighborhood segregation also promotes a more restricted view

of the relationship of social and physical space that may restrain visitation to places outside the

familiar environment of the “local neighborhood.”

3.1.3 Environment and Shared Activities

Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy (1994) suggest that there are folk traditions based in the

environmental characteristics that contribute to a unique Miami sociocultural milieu. Some of

these folk traditions revolve around the harvesting of marine resources such as fish, shrimp,

lobster, and crabs. They also suggest that the distinction between commercial and personal use

activities is not clear in the Miami area (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:138). That is,
National Park Service 3-3

some commercial fishermen also fish for personal use, and some personal-use fishermen sell

portions or all of their catch. For example, as noted elsewhere in this report, commercial

shrimping is well established in Biscayne Bay, but there are also personal-use shrimp dippers

who take a catch from areas such as Haulover Cut, Government Cut, and other waters leading

into south Biscayne Bay. There is also a growing practice of using pleasure boats to drag trawl

nets with PVC frames for nighttime shrimping (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:142-143).

Some of this personal-use catch is apparently sold, contributing to what Bucuvalas et al. see as

a blurring of the distinction between commercial and personal-use harvesting. This may be a

regional characteristic, but just as significant is the presence of these activities among different

ethnic groups. For example, snagging mullet, hook and line for barracuda, trapping for spiny

lobster, or using trot lines for crabs in the Bay are activities that are common across ethnic

groups, although some groups may have culturally specific harvest methods. There are also

craft and commercial activities associated with these practices such as boat building, making

fishing rods and nets, and processing fish harvests. These are common activities that are in

support of the harvesting of marine resources in the region (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994:148-154). 

Bucuvalas et al. also suggest that tropical agriculture and horses also characterize this regional

culture (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:154-162). Prior to Hurricane Andrew,

agriculture in this region was an important economic activity with unique products. Mangos,

guavas, pineapples, papayas, and other tropical fruits have been grown in the region to supply

local demand as well as to sell to other markets in the United States. Commercial orchards as

well as backyard trees have supplied these markets and fulfilled the local demands for these

food preferences. Bucuvalas et al. also suggest that horses have been an integral part of regional

culture since the Spanish first explored the region. Now, horses are part of ranching, racing,

pleasure riding, and breeding activities that have supporting industries and crafts.

In communities where diversity is prominent, shared activities and orientations among diverse

groups are less well understood or discussed. In fact, emphasizing diversity can mask shared

values and orientations that may provide a basis for integration and common ground. Outdoor

recreation, professional sports teams, festivals, and celebrations as well as cultural diversity may

each contribute to a regional culture in Miami. The discussion by Bucuvalas et al. regarding folk

traditions in south Florida expresses a view of shared traditions that is understandably

underdeveloped for communities where diversity reigns and commonalities are less apparent.

3.2 American Indians: The Seminole and Miccosukee

Seminole and Miccosukee Indians are part of the cultural mix surrounding BISC, but their

current attachment to the waters and lands of BISC is unclear. These American Indians have

been and now are an important component of the Miami-Dade County cultural milieu. In this

section, a brief review of some themes in the ethnographic literature regarding the Seminole

and Miccosukee is presented. However, the literature regarding each of these tribes is itself

extensive and beyond the scope of this overview to thoroughly develop the history, culture,

social structure, and lifestyles of each group. Resources indicated in the information below

direct the reader to more comprehensive assessments of these south Florida Native Americans.
3-4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

3.2.1 Population and Social History

The Miccosukee Indians have a reservation some 33 miles west of Miami. There are also

Seminole reservations at Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood, Tampa, and Immokalee, and the

Florida State Reservation, which is also partially located in nearby Broward County. In 1993,

there were approximately 2,300 persons on the Seminole Tribal rolls, and in 1994 there were

an estimated 369 enrolled members of the Miccosukee Tribe. The latter have three different

reservations: the Tamiami Trail west of Miami; Krome Avenue, which is near the Tamiami Trail

reservation; and Alligator Alley west of Fort Lauderdale. Both the Seminole and Miccosukee

have traditional use connections with Everglades National Park and the Big Cypress National

Preserve, but as of April 23, 2003 there does not appear to be a similar connection to BISC.

Currently, there are approximately 4,000 American Indians in the county, but current census

data do not indicate the exact numbers of Seminole and Miccosukee. There are cultural

resources in BISC associated with Tequesta Indians, but at present there are no significant

cultural resources associated with the Seminole or Miccosukee. Nonetheless, both of these

tribal groups have a prominent place in American Indian culture in Florida. This presentation

is limited, and those seeking a more thorough treatment of the history and traditions of the

Seminole and Miccosukee should consult ethnographic and historical materials such as William

C. Sturetevant, Seminole Sourcebook, 1985; Merwin S. Garbarino, Big Cypress: A Changing

Seminole Community, 1986; Harry A. Kersey, Jr., The Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes: A

Critical Bibliography, 1987; Dorothy Downs, Art of the Florida Seminole and Miccosukee Indians,

1995; Patsy West, The Enduring Seminole: From Alligator Wrestling to EcoTourism, 1999; Brent

Richards Weisman, Unconquered People: Florida’s Seminole and Miccosukee Indians, 1999;

Jerald T. Milanich, Florida’s Indians from Ancient Times to the Present, 1998; and Patricia

Wickman, The Tree That Bends: Discourse, Power, and the Survival of the Maskoki People, 1999.

The Seminole and Miccosukee are each descendants of the Creek Indians of the Southeast,

primarily in Alabama and Georgia. There were different bands that spoke distinct dialects, such

as Hitchiti and Muskogee. The latter eventually became a lingua franca among the different

bands. Some of these groups subsequently settled and cultivated corn and other vegetables as

well as tobacco. Ongoing conflicts with Native and non-Native groups contributed to many

moving south where they continued an agricultural lifestyle that was supplemented with

hunting and gathering. Runaway slaves sometimes became tribal members, and in other

instances the Seminole kept black slaves (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy, 1994). Eventually,

conflicts over land and the expansion of the United States into Florida resulted in the three

Seminole wars that had a major effect on the culture and populations of the Seminole. 

Tribal members today are the descendants of individuals who escaped relocation after the

second and third Seminole wars. A remnant group of about 50 to 200 individuals retreated to

the swamps and hidden reaches of the Everglades and south Florida, where they lived in small

dispersed camps (Covington 1993). These were primarily clan-based groups, the basis for

social organization among their Creek relatives. An alternative view is expressed by Wickman

(1999), who suggests that south Florida Native Americans are not necessarily Creeks who

moved south, but rather they are a people indigenous to the region. This is a more controversial

view, but one that Wickman forcefully argues based on ethnohistorical and ethnographic

research with Seminole in Florida. Most scholars, including Wickman, would agree that
National Park Service 3-5

regardless of origin, the period of the three Seminole wars was a turbulent and rich period in

the history of these peoples that resulted in the emergence of historically important leaders

such as Osceola, as well as dramatic social and cultural changes that forever changed their way

of life.

After 1858, these remnant groups remained small and isolated, and generally avoided contact

with non-Natives. However, sporadic contact did occur, and eventually the Seminole began

trading pelts, feathers, and other animal products with Americans and Europeans in the 1870s

(Kersey 1975). Furthermore, they began to have some contact with travelers and others who

made their way into Florida. This contact included missionaries who became very active among

these Natives during the late nineteenth century; some Natives were more receptive than others

to these missionizing activities. It was the early twentieth century before the Seminole became

settled on reservation lands set aside for them at Big Cypress and Dania, and then in the 1930s

the Brighton reservation was established. The opening of the Tamiami Trail also brought nonNatives into increasing contact with the Natives and there ensued an emergent industry

supplying palmetto dolls and other artifacts to tourists and travelers. There also appeared the

precursors to the “tourist villages” that displayed, or some say sensationalized, the Seminole

and their lifeways. 

These tourist villages became one alternative to reservation life while others simply chose not

to live on the reservations. One such group lived along the Tamiami Trail and they became

known as “Trail Indians.” They are described as generally more conservative than their

reservation and tourist village relatives, and more likely to participate in traditional activities,

such as the Green Corn Dance, and maintain traditional religious beliefs (Covington 1993).

This group and other reservation Indians had significant conflicts with their non-Indian

neighbors regarding land use, hunting and fishing rights, and property rights. In 1957, a group

of primarily reservation-based Indians were granted tribal status as the Seminole. Some of the

Trail Indians chose not to participate in this tribal recognition but subsequently petitioned to

have a distinct identity with reservation lands along the Tamiami Trail. These are the presentday Miccosukee Indians who reside in Miami-Dade County. Today the distinctions between

the Miccosukee and the Seminole are both political and cultural. Yet, they also share a

common Creek heritage as well as common history in their adaptations since the Seminole

wars. 

3.2.2 Lifestyles and Culture

Traditional Creek society was based on clan structure. These clans were matrilineal, that is,

traced through the mother, and excluded marriage within the clan. Seminole and Miccosukee

society have retained a Creek-based clan structure (Spoehr 1941). Although some clans have

become extinct, today the Seminole identify eight clans: Panther, Bear, Deer, Wind, Bigtown,

Bird, Snake, and Otter. There has been deterioration of clan marriage prohibitions because of

simple demographic facts. Along with this change, it now seems that although this clan

structure continues to exist, the nuclear family appears as the most important unit of social

organization among present-day Seminole and Miccosukee (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994). Similarly, traditional Seminole political organization was based in tribal councils whose

members were elected and ruled not by force but by example and persuasion. Today this
3-6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

tradition informs the self-governing Seminole and Miccosukee tribal organization that has both

political and business components. The Tribal Council:

. . . administers the Seminole Police Department, the Human Resources

programs, the Tribal gaming enterprises, citrus groves, the Billie Swamp Safari,

the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum and the majority of the Tribe’s cigarette-related

enterprises. The Seminole Tribe of Florida’s Legal Services Department

administers a public defender’s office, Water Resource Management, and the

Utilities Department (Seminole Tribe of Florida 2002).

The Miccosukee Tribe has a similar tribal and business council and a business corporation that

receives Federal, state, and private monies.

Present-day Seminole and Miccosukee engage in a variety of economic activities including

cattle ranching, gaming, and tourism. The Miccosukee Tribe “owns and operates a restaurant,

gift shop, general store, service station, and Indian Village on the Tamiami Trail Reservation;

an Indian Gaming facility and Tobacco shop on the Krome Avenue reservations; and a filling

service gas station and plaza on the Alligator Alley Reservation” (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians

of Florida 2002). 

There are some indications that gaming and associated activities contribute about 90 percent

of the income to the Miccosukee Tribe. Tribal members participate in these activities and

derive the majority of their income from tourism and gaming activities. Among the nearby

Seminole, gaming and tourism represent an equally significant source of income (Goldstein and

Testerman 1998). Some of these tourist-related activities include alligator wrestling, museum

exhibits, arts and crafts shops, exhibition villages, restaurants with traditional foods, hunting

and fishing tours, and “swamp safaris.” These types of culture-based tourist activities have

sustained the Seminole and Miccosukee since the turn of the century, and they continue to be

significant sources of income and activity for the present day (West 1999).

Religion among the Seminole and Miccosukee has blended Christianity and traditional beliefs

and practices based in their Creek heritage (Capron 1953; Sturtevant 1954a; Buswell 1982).

Since the early Spanish missionary activities, Europeans and Americans have attempted to

convert the American Indians in Florida to Christian beliefs and practices. At the turn of the

century, Christianity appears to have taken root among some Florida Seminole. Episcopal and

Baptist churches were built on the Big Cypress and Dania reservations and by the middle of the

twentieth century, Christianity was well established among the Florida Seminole. Some groups

continued to maintain traditional beliefs, but at the same time traditional beliefs and practices

based in their Creek heritage coexisted with Christianity (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994). These traditional beliefs share some common features of American Indian cosmology,

eschatology, and world view: a creation story; emphasis on harmony with the land and other

peoples; visions as a source of personal insight, power, and communication with a diety; rites

of passage; trickster stories; belief in the spirits pervading all things; and a shaman or medicine

man who led ceremonies and provided a source of communication with the “great spirits” and

the other world (Hultkrantz 1997).
National Park Service 3-7

A significant feature of traditional religious beliefs and practices among Seminole and

Miccosukee is a ceremony known as the Green Corn Dance (Capron 1953). Derived from

traditional Creek practices, this ceremony of thanksgiving and renewal retains its meaning for

many American Indians. This ritual is still practiced among the Miccosukee as well as on some

Seminole reservations, although with the arrival of Christianity in the later nineteenth century,

it ceased to be a regular practice for some Seminole (Covington 1993). The dance is about a 4-

to 7-day ceremony and is usually held sometime between late April and June. In general, these

ceremonies are closed to outsiders. The purpose of the dance is to celebrate a crop of new

corn, hence the name “green corn.” A traditional medicine man sets the day for the start of the

ceremony at a location in the wilderness. A circular dance area is prepared, and groups build

traditional chickees (thatched roof houses with cypress frames) around this focal point. Ritual

bathing and purification through consumption of emetic drinks, stickball games, fasting and

feasting, dancing, sweat baths, and consumption of “new corn” are essential features of this

ceremony (Sturtevant 1954a; Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994). Traditionally, this type

of ceremony promoted group integration and expressed ideals of religious belief and culture.

Among present-day Seminole and Miccosukee, the Green Corn Dance remains an essential

expression of their culture and way of life.

Historically, there have been two major language groups among Florida Indians: Muskogee

and Mikasuki. The Muskogee language is primarily associated with the present-day Seminole

and Mikasuki with the Miccosukee. The 1990 Census indicated that there are about 496

Muskogee speakers with 33 monolingual out of 1,200 individuals. Of the Miccosukee, 98

percent speak Mikasuki, with 25 percent monolingual. English as well as Native languages are

taught in local schools, but among the reservations there appear to be differences in the daily

use of these languages. Again, the more traditional Miccosukee appear to use their language,

where residents on reservations such as Hollywood use their language less. Language remains

an important part of the cultural identity of these groups, but as the older generation passes, it

remains to be seen how widely Native languages will persist among Seminole and Miccosukee

speakers.

Another central theme in the ethnographic literature about the Seminole and Miccosukee

peoples is the practice of traditional medicine (Greenlee 1944; Stirling 1970; Sturtevant 1954b,

1960; Snow and Stans 2001). These works suggest that traditional medicine coexists with

western medicine, and medicine men and women still have viable roles in these societies.

Elders or “gifted” persons use herbs, roots, and other products of nature to address health

issues. However, as with other aspects of Seminole and Miccosukee culture, the knowledge

and practices associated with traditional medicine are considered to be information for tribal

members and not outsiders. Consequently, there is some information regarding the uses of

plants and natural products as remedies, and less information about the ceremonies, practices,

and meanings of traditional medicine as it is practiced today. 

3.2.3 Sociocultural Issues

For many American Indians, maintaining cultural traditions and identity is an important sociocultural issue. The process of acculturation or modernization is ongoing for many tribal groups

and often results in social disruptions and psychosocial problems that have widespread conse-
3-8 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

quences for individuals, families, and communities. These issues are well documented in

anthropological and sociocultural literature regarding American Indian groups where

educational, ecological, economic, political, and other forces result in changes in traditional

ways of life. Today, both the Seminole and Miccosukee maintain cultural traditions and a

distinct cultural and political identity. Traditional food, dress, crafts, music, language, and

other aspects of culture remain part of the daily traditions. However, there are changes in the

Everglades ecosystem that affect traditional hunting, fishing, and agriculture. There are also

adaptations such as gaming and resort hotels that provide new resources as well as new

challenges for tribal members. Maintaining their culture while adapting to the modernization

of American society in general is perhaps the greatest challenge and the largest sociocultural

issue for the Seminole and Miccosukee. Maintaining or asserting their cultural identity and

traditional rights are among the more prominent issues that may affect the interaction of BISC

with the Seminole and Miccosukee in the Miami-Dade area. Importantly, the increased

economic status of these tribes may also result in the ability to devote more time and effort to

issues such as cultural resources and traditional ways of life. Moreover, these types of issues

may have increasing importance as Seminole and Miccosukee continue to adapt to new

sociocultural circumstances and find meaning in cultural and natural resources that were once

part of their history. 

3.3 Cuban-Americans

Cuba and Florida are separated by some 90 miles of water, but within the heart of Miami thrives

a society and culture that is reminiscent of a pre-Castro Cuban lifestyle. Santeria, Salsa dancing,

Bodegas, Jojo fishing, Cubano coffee, and fluent Spanish speakers are expressions of the

richness and pervasiveness of elements of Cuban culture in present-day Miami-Dade County.

Few ethnic groups have transformed an American city in such a short time as the Cubans in

Miami. Once described as a Southern spa town for the well-to-do of the Northeast, Miami has

become a de facto capital of Caribbean culture, with the flavor of that culture being decidedly

Cuban. Cubans are major contributors to the cultural milieu and ambiance of Miami proper

and Miami-Dade County more generally. Some of the major sociocultural characteristics of

Cubans in Miami-Dade County, including their demography and social history, are identified

and summarized below.

3.3.1 Demography and Social History

Population

Prior to 1959, there was a relatively small Cuban presence in Miami-Dade County; some suggest

about 20,000 persons (Boswell and Curtis 1991). Subsequent waves of immigrants swelled the

Cuban population within the County by about 500,000 persons between 1961-65, by about

125,000 persons in 1980, and by about 30,000 persons in 1994. In 1990, Cubans were about 59

percent of the Hispanic population in Miami. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 indicate the changing trends

in the composition of the Hispanic population between 1970 and 1990:
National Park Service 3-9

Table 3.1. Changing Percentages of Nationality Components of 

Dade County’s Hispanic Population – 1970-1990

Nationalities 1970 1980 1990

Cuban 83% 70% 66%

Puerto Rican 7% 8% 6%

Mexican 1% 2% 2%

Other Hispanic 10% 20% 26%

Source: Boswell and Curtis The Hispanization of Metropolitan Miami in south Florida: 

The Winds of Change. 1990. Thomas Boswell, Editor.

Table 3.2. Estimates of Nationality Components of 

Dade County’s Hispanic Population in 1990

Nationalities Numbers Percentages

Cuban 604,560 66

Nicaraguan 100,892 11

Puerto Rican 55,032 6

Colombian 45,860 5

Mexican 18,344 2

Other 91,720 10

Total 916,000 100

Source: Oliver Kerr, Hispanic Estimates for 1990 in Dade County,

Florida, Research Division, Metropolitan Dade County Planning

Department, Miami, 1990.

Preliminary analysis of the 2000 Census indicates Cubans account for about 50 percent of all

Hispanics (Viglucci 2001). These data also suggest that there are now about 651,000 Cubans

in Miami, an increase of about 15 percent from the 1990 Census (Viglucci 2001). Cubans

continue to account for a significant portion of Miami’s growth from Hispanic immigration,

but Nicaraguans, Columbians, Mexicans, and other South and Central American nations

contribute a larger share. Almost two-thirds of all U.S. Cubans now live in Florida and more

than 50 percent of those live in Miami-Dade County. Census data also suggest that the Cuban

population has higher education levels, lower unemployment, smaller families, more business

ownership, and above average incomes in comparison to other ethnic groups, and they

approach the average income for the County. 

Little Havana and Hialeah are traditional areas of residence for Miami’s Cuban population,

although some suggest that Little Havana is now more a symbolic center rather than a

residential center for Cubans. However, the initial waves of immigrants from Cuba began

settling in the Little Havana area of Miami and radiated out into Hialeah and other nearby

neighborhoods. Current data suggest that Cubans and other Hispanics are present throughout

most areas of Miami-Dade County. Figure 12 indicates the distribution of Hispanics within

Miami-Dade County in 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 2001b).

Lisandro Perez suggests that Hispanics and presumably many Cubans live in what he terms a

“Hispanic Belt,” which he describes as:
3-10 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990, 2001b

. . . running west from downtown (which is located east on Biscayne Bay) all the

way to the western edges of the metropolitan areas. This belt includes the

southern half of the city of Miami as well as the incorporated areas of West

Miami and Sweetwater, the northern part of the city of Coral Gables, and

unincorporated portions of the County in the west. Its rough boundaries are the

836 (Dolphin) Expressway on the north and Southwest 40 Street on the south. th

The belt’s principal east-west arteries, on which the commercial activities of the

Cuban population are most evident, are Northwest 7 Street, Flagler Street, th

Southwest 8 Street (The traditional Calle Ocho), Southwest 24 Street (Coral th th

Way), and the western portion of 40 Street (Bird Road). Since the 1960s the th

settlement of Cubans along this belt has proceeded from east to west, emanating

largely from the area known as Little Havana, which is located within the city of

Miami, some twelve to fifteen city blocks direct west of downtown and

stretching west along Calle Ocho for about fifteen city blocks (Perez 1992:88-89).

Figure 12. Hispanic Population, Miami-Dade County, 1990-2000
National Park Service 3-11

Social History

The social history of south Florida is often discussed in terms of “waves” of Cuban immigrants

from different time periods and each with particular social characteristics. These different

phases were fueled by economic or sociopolitical conditions in Cuba, especially the 1959 Cuban

revolution, in which Batista was deposed by forces led by Fidel Castro. Prior to the Cuban

revolution, the Spanish American War and the Machado dictatorship also pushed immigrants

to the United States. Authors who discuss Cuban migration identify several phases of

immigration depending on their interpretation of pre- and post-1959 revolution waves of

immigrants (Portes and Stepick 1993; Gonzales-Pando 1998). Although the number of

immigration waves described varies, there is general agreement that each wave can be

characterized by particular sociocultural characteristics. For purposes of this assessment, we

can identify five different phases of immigration: the first covers the time period prior to 1959;

the second, the period between 1959 and 1961; the third between 1962 and 1973; the Mariel

period between 1973 and 1980; and the post1980 period. Next the characteristics of each of

these phases and immigrant sociocultural characteristics are briefly described.

Phase I - Pre-1959 Revolution

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Cubans who immigrated to the United States

generally went to New York or other cities of the Northeast. It is estimated that during the

1890s, there were less than 20 Cubans residing in the Miami area. Subsequently, political

turmoil in Cuba and the Spanish-American War pushed immigrants into the northeastern

United States as well as into Florida. Another group of Cubans associated with the cigarmaking industry also established themselves in the Tampa area. However, it was not until the

mid-1930s that the Cuban population in Florida increased primarily as a result of political

turbulence in their homeland. A group of relatively affluent Cubans established residence in

the Miami Beach area, while a less affluent group of student activists established a colony in

downtown Miami. Little Havana became home for many of these immigrants, and they

proceeded to establish themselves as property owners and business persons (Boswell and

Curtis 1991:45). Despite ongoing political turmoil in Cuba, ties between Miami and Havana

increased with regular commercial flights between the two cities, which facilitated commerce

that further solidified links between Miami and Havana Cubans. The Cuban population grew

primarily as a result of the ongoing political turmoil and, as before, the refugees were often

educated professionals and successful businessmen. The Miami Cuban community also became

home to several exiled past leaders, including Geraldo Machado and Carlos Prio. Indeed, it was

Prio who led a group of Cubans out of Biscayne Bay in 1957 to begin the fight against Batista

that eventually resulted in the second phase of Cuban migration to the United States.

Phase II - 1959-1961

It is estimated that there were about 20,000 Cubans in Miami in 1958 (Boswell and Curtis

1991:145). However, this changed with Castro’s overthrow of Batista and his subsequent

political and economic actions. This resulted in a new wave of Cuban immigration to Florida

and particularly Miami. This Phase II immigration resulted in 250,00 persons settling in the

United States between 1959 and 1961. This group is often characterized as the “golden exiles”
3-12 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

because they were composed of attorneys, physicians, and other professional and business

persons who were well educated. They brought with them wealth and business acumen and

they found an established Cuban community in which to reestablish their business and

professional lives. The preexisting Cuban community in Little Havana, although small,

facilitated reestablishing their businesses if not their cultural lives. In fact, it is argued that the

established community in combination with the financial resources of these immigrants

provided employment and business opportunities that mitigated pressures for assimilation and

facilitated retention of Cuban culture. 

Phase III - 1962-1973

The third phase of immigration between 1962 and 1973 is characterized by a more

heterogeneous population. By this time, Castro instituted limitations on the financial resources

that refugees could take with them and thus, those arriving in this wave did not have the same

economic capital as did earlier immigrants. This group is described as being composed of more

tradesmen, mechanics, fishermen, and clerks who had less formal education than their

predecessors. Fewer men and more children and women than previous waves also

characterizes this wave (Soruco 1996:8). Another difference for this wave is their dispersion

to different areas of the United States. This dispersion was an intended feature of the Cuban

Refugee Program that was to address their immigration to Florida, and Miami in particular.

Under provisions of this program, Cuban immigrants were given financial and other incentives

to relocate from Miami to New York, New Jersey, and other states. Between 1962 and 1973,

approximately 300,000 Cubans were relocated away from Miami under the auspices of this

program (Perez 1992:87). However, by as early as 1972, there was a “return flow” phenomenon

in which those who were relocated elsewhere began returning to Miami: “Data from the 1980

Census indicate that 55 percent of the Cubans who moved to Miami between 1975 and 1980

arrived from another state, as opposed to arriving from a foreign country” (Boswell and Curtis

1991:141). These migrations to Miami were motivated more by personal ties and cultural

imperatives than by the prospect of economic enhancement. 

Phase IV - 1973-1980 Mariel

After 1972, the high tide of immigration receded until about 1980 when Castro opened the port

of Mariel to emigration that resulted in about 125,000 additional Cubans entering the United

States. As with prior waves, this group had unique characteristics: about 60 percent were male,

22 percent women, 18 percent minors (Portes and Stepick 1993). Others suggest that this wave

of immigrants represented Cuba’s population composition of construction and manufacturing

workers, who were younger and contained more Blacks and Mulattos than prior waves of

immigrants (Soruco 1996:9). Castro also released inmates from prison and some from mental

institutions, and this wave of immigrants became characterized as criminals, misfits, “scum,”

and otherwise socially undesirable individuals. However, only about 15 percent of the 125,000

immigrants had criminal records and 4 percent appear to have served prison time for offenses

that would not have resulted in prison terms in the United States (Boswell and Curtis 1991:154).

However, this element of this immigrant wave received significant attention in the press to

generally stigmatize the entire Mariel group (Suroco 1996). There is some suggestion that

Cuban immigrants were also stigmatized by the Mariel (Boswell and Curtis 1991:154-155).
National Park Service 3-13

Ultimately, some Mariel immigrants were detained and imprisoned and others were returned

to Cuba.

Phase V - Post-1980

After the 1980s, the United States instituted new immigration policies that changed the flow of

Cuban immigrants. Furthermore, there had been pressure to change the 1966 Cuban-American

Adjustment Act, which allows Cubans to become legal immigrants after one year. In 1984, the

United States and Cuba negotiated agreements that were intended to normalize migration from

Cuba to the United States by allowing up to 20,000 immigrants, 3,000 political prisoners, and

2,000 immediate family members for a total of 25,000 per year. This agreement was suspended

by Castro in 1987 and subsequently reinstated. However, between 1984 and1994, the United

States issued only about 11,000 immigration visas. Socioeconomic conditions in Cuba changed

during the mid-1990s, and in response to unrest related to these conditions, Castro allowed

Cubans to leave in small boats and other craft. The results were chaotic, and ultimately the

United States and Castro negotiated a more orderly process for this wave of refugees

(Gonzales-Pando 1998). This 1995 agreement limited immigration to the United States and

permitted those who feared political persecution. This agreement allows about 4,000 persons

a year to enter the United States, and all Cubans can apply for a lottery under the Special Cuban

Migration Program that allows up to 20,000 additional persons. About 30,000 refugees from

Cuba entered the United States as a result of the 1994 exodus from Cuba. The sociocultural

characteristics of these immigrants are less well described in the literature than prior waves of

immigrants. However, they are individuals with relatives in Florida or elsewhere who were

seeking relief from the social and economic conditions in Cuba post dissolution of the Soviet

Union. Some have suggested that these immigrants have more in common with the post-1959

and pre-Mariel Cuban immigrants (cf. Portes and Stepick 1993).

3.3.2 Lifestyles and Culture

Miami has a Latin if not a Cuban ambiance expressed in Latin music that sometimes blares from

motor and sail boats anchored at Sands Cut or Boca Chita harbor. However, the quintessential

Cuban ambiance has been associated with the area of Miami known as Little Havana. The heart

of this area is SW Eighth Street, otherwise known as Calle Ocho, along with the area between

12th and 27th Avenues. Most of the commercial establishments are on Calle Ocho, and a large

portion of the remainder of the area is residential. Cubans who arrived in Miami after 1959

found an existing community here with familiar language, culture, and ways of doing business.

This became a residential center for new immigrants who then moved into adjacent Hialeah,

which also quickly became a center for Cuban residence. More recently, Nicaraguans and

other Hispanics have established themselves in Little Havana, but it continues to retain its

Cuban heritage. Other Cubans took up residence in other parts Miami; for example, Jewish

Cubans settled in Miami Beach (Bettinger-Lopez 2000:46-36). Although Cubans have

subsequently become residents throughout Miami’s neighborhoods, there are still

concentrations in particular sections of the city. 
3-14 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Mutual Aid Organizations and Ethnic Enclaves

These residential concentrations suggest at least two themes about the social organization of

Cuban-Americans in Miami. One is the practice of mutual assistance and the other is an “ethnic

enclave” that influenced the socioeconomic conditions for Cuban-Americans. The process of

mutual assistance is expressed in municipios, a feature of Cuban society immigrants

reconstituted in the United States. These organizations, known as Los Municipios de Cuba en

el Exilio (Cuban Municipalities in Exile), are a network of mutual assistance groups that existed

in Cuba. There were about 126 of these in Cuba, and about 117 have reorganized in MiamiDade County. These are formal organizations that have elected officials and function as

primarily social groups that sponsor festivals, gatherings, holiday celebrations, and the days of

patron saints (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:80-81). These types of organizations

offered new immigrants an existing network of contacts and mutual support that buffered the

transition into a new social and cultural milieu. Today these organizations have grown into a

source of political power and influence, but they retain an important function of promoting

social solidarity within the Cuban community. A similar type of organization formed among

Cuban Jews is known as the Circulo Cubano-Hebreo de Miami. This organization was also

important in promoting social solidarity among this group of Cubans: 

The Circulo’s primary objectives thus focused on making a better life for the Cuban Jews

in Miami. They aimed ‘to restore the social activities of the Cuban Jews in Miami,

through an active society and in a secure or permanent place’ and ‘to provide social

assistance to people . . . lacking sufficient economic resources.’ . . . Finally, El Circulo

sought to forge ties with secular organizations throughout the city of Miami . . .

(Bettinger-Lopez 2000:40). 

These organizations are an important resource for Miami’s Cuban residents because they assist

new residents’ integration into a familiar social setting. Such organizations also indicate a

community that is trying to recreate a social environment similar to their homeland.

The Cuban community in Miami also formed what can be termed an ethnic enclave that further

assisted their adaptation to new socioeconomic circumstances. According to Perez, quoting

Portes and Bach (1985:203), an enclave is “a distinctive economic formation, characterized by

the spatial concentration of immigrants who organize a variety of enterprises to serve their own

ethnic market and the general population” (Portes 1987:90). Boswell and Curtis (1991) also

suggest that Cubans established a true economic enclave in Miami. 

Miami’s Hispanics have established their own economic enclave that caters particularly

(but not only) to the Latin American market. In this enclave, it is possible to transact all

business negotiations in Spanish and to use Latin business customs, thus making it easier

for newly-arrived immigrants to become incorporated quickly into the Hispanic

economic mainstream. The initial capital and entrepreneurial skills used to establish the

enclave were provided by the earliest waves of immigrants who left Cuba in the early

1960s. The later flows of refugees sustained its growth and allowed it to reach a

sufficient size for economies of scale to be developed. As more recent waves

contributed immigrants who were somewhat less educated and less skilled, they
National Park Service 3-15

provided a cross section of laborers that would allow for a more vertically integrated

local ethnic economy to develop (Boswell and Curtis 1991:151).

This enclave process sustains the lifestyle of Miami-Dade Cubans. They are owners of

construction, finance, retail, and wholesale businesses, and they supply goods and services to

other immigrants as well as the larger Miami population. However, it is the “institutional

completeness” of this ethnic enclave that is unique: a nearly full range of services and products

exists that allows individuals to live within their own communities (Perez 1992:91). Such an

enclave clearly provides economic as well as social benefits, since not only familiar goods and

services are available, but also employment and social support in the form of existing networks.

Perez also suggests that the enclave has assisted the overall economic circumstances of

Hispanics by allowing for culturally appropriate participation of females in the labor market

(Perez 1992:92). That is, within the enclave where family and friendship contacts exist, women

find opportunities that might otherwise not exist. The effect is to have a relatively high rate of

participation by females in the Cuban work force, and this directly contributes to their

economic status. The enclave also promotes the retention of traditional culture, but pressures

for assimilation and acculturation exist within Cuban communities, and there are reported

intergenerational differences in values and orientations (Bettinger-Lopez 2000). However,

differences between adults and adolescents regarding traditional values are common among

diverse social and cultural groups.

Although the Cuban enclave is described as promoting social solidarity, economic mobility,

cultural expression, as well as mitigating assimilation pressures, there are critics who argue it

has adverse effects on other Miami populations, particularly Blacks (Mohl 1991; Dunn 1997).

The “special status” accorded early Cuban immigrants as political refugees, which has caused

some tensions with other Caribbean immigrants, especially Haitians, allowed for financial

assistance and other incentives that were not available to other immigrants or minority groups.

This aided the formation of enclaves that promoted the economic success of Miami-Dade

Cubans. In fact, Dunn (1997) argues that Cuban success is directly related to the lack of success

among Miami Blacks:

The Cuban influx succeeded not only in diverting attention from Miami Blacks during

the crucial integration period, but also by virtue of their greater social acceptability and

entrepreneurial skills. Cubans began winning the lion’s share of public dollars,

especially for business development. . . . Considering all SBA loans made in Dade

County from 1968 to 1980, Hispanics received 46.9 percent of funds made available .

. . , non-Hispanic Whites received 46.6 percent . . . , and Blacks received 6 percent. . . .

(Dunn 1997:329).

Dunn also suggests that housing, jobs, public health resources, and other public assistance

resources were consumed by Hispanics to the detriment of Blacks, resulting in racial tensions

(Dunn 1997:330-333).

Language 

Language expresses the values and world views of a people and its persistence among
3-16 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

immigrants is an indicator of the maintenance of traditional values and beliefs. It is not

surprising that Spanish remains the first language of many Miami-Dade Cubans: the enclave

process provided an environment in which business and personal interactions could be

conducted in Spanish. Language could be sustained even when the dominant language was

English in the larger communities of Miami-Dade because of a network of personal and

business ties that facilitated, if not rewarded, speaking Spanish. As the Spanish population

grew, Miami became a bilingual city with Spanish spoken in a wide range of social, business,

and private situations. Max Castro contrasts Spanish language use in Miami and Los Angeles

as follows: 

What was so unusual about Spanish in Miami was not that it was so often spoken, but

that it was so often heard. In Los Angeles . . . Spanish remained a language only barely

registered by the Anglo population, part of the ambient noise: the language spoken by

the people who worked in the car wash, trimmed the trees, and cleared the tables in

restaurants. In Miami, Spanish was spoken by the people who ate in the restaurants and

owned the cars and trees. On the socio-auditory scale, this contrast made a considerable

difference. . . . (Castro 1992:113).

The pervasiveness of Spanish in Miami-Dade County became a political if not a cultural issue

for Cubans. In 1973, an ordinance was passed in Dade County that identified the County as

bilingual. This political acknowledgment of the reality of Spanish as a significant language issue

in the community was responded to with a grass-roots campaign in 1980 with the intention of

establishing an “English only” policy for the county (Castro 1992:119). The effect of this policy

was to prohibit the use of public monies for language use other than English, including the

banning of fire safety information pamphlets in Spanish, Spanish marriage ceremonies, and

Spanish signs for public transportation. This initiative was not supported by a wide spectrum

of Anglos or Blacks, but it did pass and indicated some of the tensions within Dade County

regarding the emergence of Hispanics as a powerful political, economic, and cultural force, with

language being the auditory expression of that presence. Subsequently, elements within the

Hispanic community known as the Spanish American League Against Discrimination promoted

an English Plus policy, arguing that in the socioeconomic context of Miami and a growing

global economy, bilingualism was an important asset. Fradd and Boswell (1996) express a

similar perspective in their argument that bilingualism and particularly Spanish-English

bilingualism is an economic asset for communities with multinational workforces and

multinational corporations.

Religion: Catholicism, Santeria, and Judaism

The dominant religion of Cuban immigrants is Catholicism, although Jews and Protestants are

also well represented within the Cuban community. There is also thriving practice of Africanbased practices known as Santeria that often coexist with the dominant religions. In this

section we briefly outline Cuban-American religious traditions as expressed in the existing

literature, which focuses on Santeria (Canizares 1993), Catholicism (e.g., Tweed 1997), and

Judaism (e.g., Bettinger-Lopez 2000).
National Park Service 3-17

Catholicism

The existing ethnographic literature regarding Catholic Cubans in Miami-Dade County focuses

on particular religious practices and symbols and their relationship to Cuban identity and

nationality. The most developed topic concerns the shrine, pilgrimages, and meanings

associated with Our Lady of Charity and La Caridad del Cobre. “Our Lady of Charity” is the

Patron Saint of Cuba as identified by Pope Benedict the XV in 1916. The Saint’s day is

celebrated on September 8. A shrine was built by the refugee community in 1973, on South

Miami Drive, on the shores of Biscayne Bay. The shrine faces toward the ocean and looks out

at what should be the direction of their Cuban homeland. The altar at this shrine contains

Cuban soil and rocks taken from the raft of Cuban refugees who tried to make it to Florida

shores but died in the process. There is also a mural depicting key events in Cuban history and

the shrine otherwise expresses themes of Cuban nationalism. The center piece of the shrine

is a statue of the Virgin brought to Cuba in 1961, and behind this statue are busts of two Cuban

patriots. The shrine is a center for one of the largest pilgrimages in the United States by

Catholics, attracting more than a 100,000 pilgrims each year. Included in the religious practices

of individuals at this shrine are rosaries, singing of the Cuban national anthem, and prayers to

Our Lady for her intercession to oust Castro from Cuba. Although this shrine is important as

a Catholic religious site, it is also a fundamental expression of what Tweed (1997) terms

“diaspora religion,” which expresses nationalistic themes of a group in exile. Tweed’s extended

discussion of this shrine should be consulted for a thorough analysis of the link between Cuban

Catholicism and nationalism as expressed at the Our Lady of Charity shrine.

Jewish Cubans

Jewish Cubans fled Cuba along with immigrants of other ethnicities and religions and then

established themselves in Miami and other parts of Miami-Dade County. These Cuban Jews

are part of a growing population of Hispanic Jews who are immigrating from various Latin

American countries. Between 5,000 and 6,000 Hispanic Jews are estimated to be in Miami and

about 3,000 of those are Cuban (Roth 1999). It is estimated that about 90 percent of all Jews in

Cuba immigrated to the United States in the early 1960s, about 5,000 persons (Bettinger-Lopez

2000:7). Sephardic and Ashkenazic elements are represented in this community. Jews sought

out the local Miami Jewish community, but there are reports that they did not find an

immediately warm welcome from all segments of this community, aside from the Miami

Beach’s North Beach Ashkenasiz temple (Bettinger-Lopez 2000:23-29). Cuban Jews

experienced an alienation from their non-Jewish fellow Cubans, while the local Jewish

community was less than welcoming (Bettinger-Lopez 200:34-35). A result was the emergence

of a Jewish Cuban identity among these exiles.

This consolidation, which resulted in the development of the Circulo Cubano-Hebreo (CubanHebrew Social Circle), signified the entrance of the Cuban Jews into new space – one where

they would not be challenged as either Cubans or Jews. Within this space, these emigrés

identities changed, both as individuals and as members of a larger group; here they became the

(intentionally hyphenated) “Cuban-Jews” (Bettinger-Lopez 2000:35). Subsequently, they

became integrated into larger Jewish community in Miami, but the Circulo remains a focus of

Jewish Cuban social and religious life, integrating these in a way that reflects their Cuban social
3-18 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

traditions. Identity, homeland, new-land, old identity, new identity; these are the types of issues

discussed in connection with Cuban Jews establishing themselves within a larger Jewish

population. The specific issues of religiosity are not as vigorously discussed and, as with Cuban

Catholics, the emphasis is on homeland and diaspora. These are the types of issues that reflect

the historical realities of a displaced population. Religion becomes another cultural expression

or reflection of concerns about homeland, culture, and identity.

Santeria

Santeria or La Regla Lukumi is a religious tradition based in the spiritual beliefs of the Yoruba

or Lukumi people of West Africa. The Lukumi were transported to the Caribbean and

elsewhere as slaves, especially by the early Spanish explorers of the region. Santeria (Way of

the Saints) derives its name from the practice of slaves converted to Catholicism who were

observed praying to saints instead of to Christ. These Yoruba disguised the practice of their

native beliefs by praying to the saints, and this is part of the origin of the blending of Catholic

and Yoruba traditions that is now said to be practiced by between 75,000 to 100,000 persons

in southeast Florida. Many of these practitioners can reportedly be traced to the persons who

came to south Florida from the Mariel immigration. 

The primary deity of Santeria is the remote god known as Olodumare, but deities known as

orishas are the subjects for many of the daily rituals and practices among Santeria believers.

These orishas function much like saints in Catholicism, wherein saints intercede on behalf of

humans to solve life problems or protect humans from harm and misfortune. The blending of

Catholic and Santeria traditions is well illustrated in Ochun, who is the orisha of love,

femininity, and rivers, and is said to assist women in childbirth. The Catholic manifestation of

Ochun is Our Lady of Charity, who is the patron saint of Cuba. The commonly evoked orishas

are associated with the forces of nature over which they are believed to have control: Elegba,

road and doors; Ogun, iron, war, and labor; Oshosi, hunting and tracking; Obatala, father of

other orishas and creativity and justice; Oya, winds; Yemaya, seas and lakes; Shango, lightning,

fire, and thunder; and Orunmila, wisdom and divination. Orishas also have an associated color

or colors; a number, food, and dance; and an emblem or other manifestation. As in

Catholicism, there is an associated feast day associated for each orisha. Humans invoke the

powers of the orishas through rituals of sacrifice and praise. Divination (Ifa), possession, and

dance rituals known as bembes are essential aspects of Santeria, as is the use of herbs and other

“botanicals” in rituals and for medicinal purposes. Santeria practices are usually presided over

by a priest or priestess. (Canizares 1993).

Celebrations and Customs

Among Hispanics, including Cubans, the importance of the family is expressed in the presence

of celebrations and rituals associated with key life events. For Cubans, life cycle events such

as baptism, birthdays, and the passage of girls into adolescence (quinceañera) are marked by

celebrations or rituals. Similarly, for adults, marriages are often formal religious ceremonies

with elaborate banquets afterwards. Wakes are held for departed friends and family, and their

grave sites are visited on holy days and secular holidays, such as Mother’s or Father’s Day and

the deceased’s birthday. In both Hialeah and Little Havana, there are speciality merchants who
National Park Service 3-19

cater to the demand for the flowers, dresses, tuxedos, catering, and other accouterments that

accompany these celebrations and remembrances. 

Social life for Miami-Dade’s Cuban communities also includes the celebration of various

secular and religious holidays. Celebration of New Year’s Day is often accompanied by the

practice of emptying a bucket of water into the street to rid houses of the troubles of the past

year. January 28 is a day for parades and celebration of the birthday of Jose Marti, a hero of the

Cuban independence movement against the Spanish at the turn of the last century. The Miami

Carnaval is the Mardi Gras, and more, of Miami-Dade County, which is celebrated with

parades, Latin music and dance, feasts, with a few religious overtones associated with the

observance of Lent. Other significant holidays include May 20, which celebrates Cuba’s

independence from Spain and December 28, the Day of the Innocents (when King Herod is

said to have killed innocent babies). The tone of this holiday is secular, having the

characteristics of April Fool’s day in American Culture (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994:90-93). 

Culture is also expressed in everyday food, music, and other entertainment. The everyday

foods of Cuban-Americans express the intersection of African and Caribbean traditions with

yams, plantains, okra, and grains characteristic of African traditions. Traditional meals are

beans, rice, and a meat dish, with pork the preferred meat, followed by beef and chicken. Small

family-owned grocery stores known as Bodegas sell café cubano, a staple of Cuban life; fresh

fruits; rice and black beans; and perhaps a tamarind fruit drink. Bodegas are pervasive and

reflect the reestablishment of Cuban culture in south Florida (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994:82:84). In the neighborhoods of Hialeah and Little Havana, visitors are likely to hear a

variety of Latin and especially Cuban music. As with food, this music expresses both Spanish,

African, and blended traditions. Some of the African traditions are expressed in rich music and

dance associated with the practice of Santeria, but Salsa music rich with trumpets and

trombones is a core form of music expression in Cuban neighborhoods. Other popular forms

of entertainment include playing dominoes and fishing, especially with a hand line (known as

jojo fishing) (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:94-96).

3.3.3 Sociocultural Issues

Exile Culture

A theme that pervades Cuban culture in Florida is the notion of a people in exile who expect

to return to their homeland. This is termed “exile culture.” Cubans have been characterized

as preoccupied with the political, economic, and social issues in their homeland, but especially

political issues. Perez suggests four characteristics of exile ideology:

1. The primacy of issues and concerns that deal with the political status of the

homeland.

2. Uncompromising struggle against and hostility toward the current Cuban

government. 

3. Lack of debate allowed about the “exile ideology” within the community.
3-20 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

4. Overwhelming support for the Republican party among Cubans within Miami.

(Perez 1992:95-96). 

He also suggests this ideology is sustained by the preponderance of Cuban-born individuals in

the current population, the presence among those persons of those who left more for political

reasons, and the presence of the enclave that facilitates communication and focus about exile

ideology (Perez 1992:98-99).

Part of “exile culture” has always been the belief that return to Cuba was imminent. In part,

holding on to this belief also entails the notion that participation in the American political

process or registering to vote or otherwise investing in the exiled home was less than patriotic.

However, after the Bay of Pigs and the persistence of Castro in political power, CubanAmericans began a new process of participating in social, economic, and political arenas in a

way they had not previously:

By the later part of the 1970s, the old dilemma between competing allegiances to Cuba

and the United States was finally overcome, opening the way to massive American

citizenship and voter registration drives. During the decade, the number of Cubans who

became American citizens more than doubled. It would be misleading, however, to

assume that all those who adopted United States citizenship had actually replaced their

sense of identity as Cuban exiles for that of ethnic immigrants (Gonzales-Pando

1998:60).

Exile culture remains a significant issue among Cubans in Miami-Dade County as evidenced

by community responses to the return of Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba. That is, exile

culture frames the interpretation of events in particular ways and suggests the morals, values,

and actions that should be taken in an event such as the Elian Gonzalez case. Some authors

have suggested that, as the waves of immigrants who fled from the Castro revolution pass, exile

culture may diminish in its intensity (Perez 1992).

Assimilation

For a minority immigrant population, there is a cultural expectation of blending into or

“assimilating” into the dominant culture as part of the “melting pot” process in American

culture. Assimilation is a concern for Cuban as well as all other immigrants in Miami-Dade

County, but the literature suggests some particular issues about Cuban assimilation. One issue

concerns how the enclave economy supports the maintenance of Cuban identity, language

usage, and lifestyle. The existence of the enclave allows individuals and families to listen to

Cuban music, eat ethnic foods, speak their native language, conduct business in a culturally

familiar style, and to otherwise maintain a Cuban frame of reference in everyday life. Exile

culture also works against assimilation by establishing a frame of reference that in the past

promoted the notion of eventual return to Cuba; this perspective inhibited assimilation into the

dominant culture. Similarly, the first waves of post-revolutionary immigrants were older and

more established in their own culture and this inhibited assimilation (Perez 1992:93). Among

the American-born children of immigrants, there is evidence of selective adoption of aspects

of dominant culture and concern within Cuban families about the erosion of traditional culture.
National Park Service 3-21

However, the process of assimilation among Cuban youth suggests that a Cuban-American

identity is emerging, along with concerns about “which culture” and “what identity” represents

authentic experience (e.g., Bettinger-Lopez 2000).

Economic Enclave

The economic enclave established by Cuban refugees in Miami has received considerable

attention in academic literature (e.g., Portes and Bach 1985). Portes and Bach suggest that an

economic enclave is a particular structure in which there is a “spatial concentration of

immigrants who organize a variety of enterprises to serve their own ethnic market and the

general population” (Portes and Bach 1985:203). The existence of human and monetary capital

established a range of businesses and services among Cuban immigrants that also resulted in

additional employment and business opportunities for new waves of immigrants. These

businesses established a foundation on which a wide range of small businesses and professional

services developed to serve new immigrants. The literature also suggests that Cubans own more

businesses and have a better socioeconomic status than other immigrants (Perez 1992). The

economic enclave process is a partial explanation for the success of Miami Cubans since it also

explains the economic basis for their upward mobility in south Florida society in general. As

noted earlier, the enclave has provided the range of services and opportunities that have

allowed Cubans to sustain cultural practices and ways of life they left behind in their homeland.

This has not only buffered the effects of discrimination and assimilation but also asserts a

cultural presence that authors suggest defines the cultural milieu that is Miami-Dade County.

This cultural presence itself reinforces the enclave process and validates the ways of life and

traditions of Cuban heritage in the presence of a dominant culture.

3.4 African Americans

The literature regarding peoples of African American descent in south Florida addresses

African Americans as well as Haitians, Cubans, Bahamians, and other Caribbean peoples. The

existing literature usually refers to these peoples as “Blacks” (e.g., Mohl 1991; Dunn 1997). For

consistency with these conventions, we refer to the African American populations in MiamiDade County as Blacks. This population is distinguished from Haitians, Cubans, and other

groups that also have African ancestry, but who are ethnically distinct from African Americans.

However, the literature indicates that Blacks from the Bahamas, Haiti, and elsewhere in the

Caribbean have intermarried with American Black populations with a resulting crossfertilization of customs and traditions. We note where these cross-fertilization issues are

important, but this discussion focuses on ethnic African Americans.

3.4.1 Population and Social History

Population

Preliminary 2000 Census results indicate there are approximately 457,214 African Americans

in Miami-Dade County, or about 20 percent of the 2000 Census total population. In 1990 there

were about 360,000 Blacks or about 22 percent of the population. Since the turn of the century,

the range of the Black population in Miami-Dade County has been between 26 percent (1900)
3-22 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

and 35 percent (1910), with a low of 17 percent in 1980 (Mohl 1991:112). Several sources

regarding black demography in Miami-Dade County (Mohl 1991; Dunn and Stepick 1992;

Dunn 1997) suggest the following noteworthy issues in black population trends and

composition:

1) There is a history of steady growth in the black population in south Florida and particularly

Miami-Dade County since the early part of this century. Table 3.3 indicates population

growth for Blacks.

Table 3.3. Population of Dade County, Florida, by Race and Ethnicity

Year Total Population Black Hispanic Origin Whites and Others

1930 142,955 29,894 n/a n/a

1940 267,739 49,518 n/a n/a

1950 495,084 65,392 20,000 409,692

1955 715,000 101,000 35,000 579,000

1960 935,047 137,299 50,000 747,748

1965 1,101,500 163,500 174,500 763,500

1970 1,267,435 189,042 296,820 781,573

(1)1975 1,462,000 237,000 467,000 773,000 (1)

1980 1,625,781 280,358 580,340 775,914

1985 1,775,000 367,000 768,000 662,000

1990 1,937,094 397,993 953,407 614,066

1995 2,057,000 440,200 1,134,300 515,900

 There is some overlap of Blacks and persons of Hispanic origin beginning in 1975. (1)

Source: Metro-Dade Planning Department, “Profile,” 4. Estimates for 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, and 1995 by Metro-Dade Planning Department,

Research Division, 1995.

2) From about 1900-1930 Blacks accounted for more than 40 percent of population growth

in Florida. Interstate migration accounted for the majority of this growth, with Georgia, the

Carolinas, and states of the northeast being primary sources of migrants. Blacks were drawn

to south Florida and Miami because of work opportunities, primarily in the tourist industry

and railroads. These early migrants worked primarily as unskilled laborers (Mohl 1991:118).

3) Blacks are more concentrated in south Florida and especially Miami, but overall, Florida’s

black population has decreased whereas Miami-Dade’s black population has increased

(Dunn 1997:335-336). Between 1970-1980, the black population grew by 47 percent, a rate

exceeded only by Atlanta, Georgia. Miami became 1 of only 16 major metropolitan areas

with a black population of more than 300,000 (Dunn and Stepick 1992:50). 

4) In recent decades, Miami-Dade’s black population has increased as a result of immigration,

primarily from Caribbean immigrants. In 1980 about 20 percent of the black population

was foreign born (Dunn and Stepick 1992:49). This trend continued through the 1980s:

By 1990, one in four Dade Blacks was born in the Caribbean, primarily in Haiti

and the West Indies. There were 117,000 foreign-born Blacks in Dade County

in 1990, about 30 percent of the total. The bulk of these, about 99,000 or 25 percent . . . , were born in the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico (Dunn 1997:336).
National Park Service 3-23

Table 3.4. Place of Birth, by Ancestry, Black Population, Dade County – 1990

Place of Birth

African

American Haitian West Indian Hispanic Other Uncoded Total

United States 199,139 14,223 9,459 4,440 5,974 48,386 281,621

Caribbean 4,399 40,118 32,946 10,684 3,045 7,624 98,816

Central America 417 0 556 3,030 105 282 4,390

Other 657 162 730 717 3,217 611 6,094

Unspecified Abroad 114 687 560 365 84 6,240 8,050

Total 204,726 55,190 44,251 19,236 12,425 63,143 398,971

Source: Metro-Dade Planning Department, “Profile,” 18.

5) Blacks moved away from Overtown and Liberty City in the years following 1960. In 1991,

Mohl noted: “Since the 1960s, a large and still expanding corridor of black residential

housing has emerged in the northwest quadrant of Dade County, reaching beyond Liberty

City to Opa-Loca and Carol City” (Mohl 1991:125). Dunn also observed that black

residence has moved northwest into Carol City, Richmond, and other traditionally white

areas of Miami. Regarding this trend Dunn notes:

The past decade appears to have been marked by two contrasting but not

contradictory movements of the Black populations. On one hand, there has been

an expansion of the population and size of majority-Black areas; on the other,

there was a more widespread movement of Blacks into formerly all-White areas.

While there were more areas of very high concentration of Blacks, they

accommodated a smaller proportion of Dade’s Black population. One third of

all Blacks now live outside predominately Black areas (Dunn 1997:341).

Dunn also notes that neighborhood racial segregation is a characteristic of black residence with

more than 80 percent of the black population living in nearly contiguous communities; current

residential and population patterns suggest this trend will continue (Dunn 1997:341-342). Tables 3.5 and 3.6 indicate trends in the presence of Blacks in particular neighborhoods and cities.

Table 3.5. Black Population and Percent of Population, Selected Cities, Dade County – 1950-1990

City

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % (1)

Miami 40,242 16 65,213 22 76,156 23 87,110 25 98,207 27

N. Miami 17 0 51 0 69 0 1,597 4 15,941 32

Opa-Loca 1,681 32 3,544 36 3,503 19 9,182 63 10,603 69

N. Miami Bch n/a 0 719 3 1,010 3 93 0 7,707 22

Homestead 1,691 37 3,178 35 3,871 28 5,278 26 6,178 23

Miami Beach 640 1 568 1 319 0 894 1 4,798 5

Florida City 1,547 100 2,403 58 3,040 59 3,678 60 3,540 61

South Miami 1,599 33 2,403 24 2,842 24 3,282 30 3,078 30

Miami Shores n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 123 1 2,056 20

El Portal n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 314 15 1,312 53

Other Dade 18,147 8 59,788 11 99,174 12 170,214 15 252,739 18

Dade County 64,947 13 137,299 15 189,666 15 280,434 17 397,993 21

 Percentage is of city population. (1)

Source: Metro-Dade Planning Department, “Profile,” 26.
3-24 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Table 3.6. Population of Black Neighborhoods in Dade County – 1960-1990

Neighborhood 1960 1970 1980 1990

Carol City 222 7,384 27,564 29,213

Washington Park 640 965 1,477 6,630

West Little River 10 12,121 21,648 22,887

Edison Park 90 8,922 24,081 34,851

Model City 49,025 73,799 61,561 55,038

Seminola 842 970 955 314

Overtown 38,581 20,899 13,386 12,510

Coconut Grove 9,463 9,281 5,961 5,701

Richmond Heights 4,400 7,469 6,036 7,485

Perrine 5,057 5,502 4,485 7,667

Goulds 3,900 6,065 6,024 6,004

Naranja 726 711 1,426 1,556

Total Neighborhoods 112,956 154,188 174,604 189,856

Blacks, Dade County 137,299 189,042 280,358 397,993

Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department, “Profile,” 26.

Social History

Among the first Blacks to the Biscayne Bay region were slaves who accompanied settlers in 1804

(Dunn 1997), although the first Blacks in Miami were Bahamians (Mohl 1991). However, there

is what appears to be a myth, or perhaps just shallow history, about the presence of a black

pirate who roamed Biscayne Bay and environs. Dunn quotes the logs of Commodore Ralph

Monroe, one of the early explorers and residents of Biscayne Bay as follows:

We entered Biscayne Bay through Caesar’s Creek, a long and winding channel. . . . Here

we were again invested with the spirit of piracy, for this was the stronghold of Black

Ceasar, a giant negro, who took toll from passing vessels along the reef. . . . (Dunn

1997:10).

 Black Caesar, who may have been the Black Seminole John Caesar, suggests that Blacks have

been part of the social history of south Florida since the days of the earliest Spanish explorers.

They worked as domestics and constructed outposts for the Spanish; sometimes they escaped

and lived with American Indians. The “Black Seminoles” (Porter 1996) became a recognized

group among the Seminole, participating fully in the traditions and social life of the tribe. They

also fought alongside other Seminole in the Second Seminole War. 

Throughout the early and later periods of exploration and development, black slaves as well as

freemen were part of the population who often held the tough jobs of clearing and developing

the land. During the British period (1763-1784), large indigo, rice, sugar, and cotton plantations

were established, and large numbers of slaves from Sierra Leone were brought in to work. At

the conclusion of the American Revolution, Florida returned to Spanish control and:

. . . many slaves took advantage of the chaos of war and the subsequent colonial transfer

to escape British control. Untold numbers found sanctuary among the Seminole nation.

. . . Others . . . claimed a refuge among the incoming Spaniards on the grounds of

religious conversion . . . (Landers 1996:175).
National Park Service 3-25

The black population continued to grow as the Spanish ruled Florida between 1784-1821. This

increase occurred from natural population growth, the importation of new slaves, and the

migration from other states of runaway and ex-slaves seeking refuge in Florida. The Keys as

well as other parts of Florida were also a destination for Bahamian Blacks, who also contributed

to Florida’s growing black population (Mohl 1991). Some estimates suggest that Blacks were

about 27 percent of the population, and by 1814, this number rose to about 57 percent (Landers

1996:178). With the arrival of the Americans after the war of 1812, the social climate for Blacks

deteriorated. Black troops had fought against the Americans, and sentiments about free Blacks

among the Americans resulted in the emigration of some Blacks to both Cuba and Mexico. Free

Blacks suffered significant discrimination under American rule, and the slave population

swelled as land was cleared and developed into plantations. Not surprisingly, Florida’s

secession during the Civil War was a marker of the importance of slaves in the state. However,

after the war, the freed slaves found their lives not much improved as they worked as

sharecroppers and tenant farmers and, as the rail lines pushed south, they also found work as

laborers. By the turn of the twentieth century, civil rights promised as part of Reconstruction

remained to be implemented. Although Blacks were a significant proportion of the total

population, at the 1885 State Constitutional Convention, only 8 of the total 108 delegates were

Black (Proctor 1996:274-275). Civil rights were further eroded by establishing a poll tax and

mandated school segregation. In the new state, the promises of Lincoln were not ones that

were uniformly implemented, and civil rights continued as a significant issue for Florida’s black

populations.

Until the 1960s, a slavery mentality persisted among the White residents of Miami and

elsewhere in Florida (Dunn and Stepick 1992). Civil rights were ignored or undermined and,

in the worst cases, Blacks were subject to racially motivated violence: 

Forced to live in a segregated and unjust society, Blacks were frequently subjected to

lynchings and mob violence. Between 1900 and 1917 approximately ninety Black men

and women were lynched in the State. Their “misdeeds” ranged from insulting White

women, to a refusal to give up land, to alleged rape and murder. . . . Whites were

responsible for more than fifty lynchings between 1918 and 1930 (Jones 1996:379).

Nonetheless, after 1900 many Blacks from other Southern states migrated to Florida because

of economic opportunities. Georgia, the Carolinas, as well as the Northeast were sources of

migrants to Florida where they found work on the railroads, in the tourist industry, and in the

fields and cattle ranches of Florida’s agricultural industry. At the same time, Bahamians also

migrated into south Florida seeking economic opportunities. Of the 966 identified Blacks in

the 1900 Census for Miami, about 212 (22 percent) were Bahamians, 392 (41 percent) were

native-born Blacks, and the remainder were from the Carolinas, Alabama, Virginia, and

elsewhere. As they were in slave times, Blacks became an essential part of the labor force that

was necessary to develop Florida in the twentieth century. Although black employment was

mostly in the labor and service industries, there was also a black professional class of

physicians, attorneys, teachers, and business owners that developed between the turn of the

century and the early 1960s. However, the socioeconomic status of most black Floridians

remained problematic (Jones 1996:378-383).
3-26 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

After Miami was incorporated in 1896, there was already an established black community that

began to grow immediately after the turn of the century. South Miami, Homestead, and Florida

City were among the earliest black settlements. By 1910, Blacks were 42 percent of the

population. Following conflicts with their neighbors, some of whom were white, an ordinance

was passed that essentially established racial zoning. Blacks became concentrated in what was

termed “colored town,” which later became Overtown just on the outskirts of downtown

Miami. A Bahamian-based black community developed in Coconut Grove to the south and also

along the railroad tracks toward Homestead where black farmers took up residence. Blacks

became concentrated in these areas as a result of this racial zoning, and a pattern of residential

segregation became characteristic of Miami (Mohl 1991:123). 

As the city developed and demands for business space increased, there were further efforts to

relocate and concentrate Blacks in areas away from Overtown, which was adjacent to the

central Miami business district. This included the construction of Interstate 95 (I-95), which

displaced Blacks from Overtown to make room for the interstate and to create room for

expansion of the business district (Dunn 1997:157). The Liberty Square area, northwest of

Miami, was designated for new black residences in a housing project known as Liberty City.

This further expressed a pattern of intentional segregation of Blacks into particular

neighborhoods, primarily in the areas northwest of Miami, that was evident in the interval

between 1940 and the 1960s (Mohl 1991:134). The overall effect of these policies was to create

the current pattern of residential segregation in Miami-Dade County.

The effects of this pattern of residential segregation include a heightening of racial tensions

between Blacks and Whites, as well as Cubans (Mohl 1991), and undermining the political

effectiveness of the black populations in Miami. Dunn and Stepick (1992) note that 60 percent

of the black population lived in unincorporated areas with limited political power. Furthermore, the practice of electing county commissioners at large further limited the ability of Blacks

to exercise political power since they were concentrated in areas where their votes could be

fragmented. Stack and Warren also suggest that “the fact that the majority of the black population resides in highly segregated yet spatially isolated neighborhoods, throughout sprawling

Dade County . . . . makes it difficult for any effective grass roots political mobilization to occur

. . . ” (Stack and Warren 1992:170). Residential segregation also contributed to diminished economic opportunities along with the effects of racial and job discrimination experienced by

Blacks in Miami-Dade County. This is in stark contrast to the socioeconomic success of Cubans and this contrast is itself problematic for Blacks in Miami who have been characterized as:

. . . the most frustrated residents of the city. Cubans have prospered economically and

have gained political control over much of local government. A good portion of the

working class Anglo community has simply left, but most Blacks have no place in which

to flee. While some Black’s have truly become economically better off since the arrival

of Cuban immigrants . . . , most Blacks have seen Cuban immigrants leap past them. One

third of the black population remains locked in poverty and for many conditions are

getting worse (Dunn and Stepick 1992:54).

Economic and political frustration along with perceptions of limited social opportunities are

common characterizations of the social history of Blacks in Miami-Dade County.
National Park Service 3-27

Another dominant theme in black social history concerns racial tensions and civil unrest often

related to social inequities in south Florida:

Prior to the civil rights movement in Dade County, Black people were truly second class

citizens. Relations between Black and White people in Dade County were cordial, as

long as Black people understood that they were not the social equals of Whites. The

‘Whites only’ signs, as prevalent in Miami as they were in other southern cities, stood

everywhere as reminders in case someone forgot (Dunn 1997:171). 

Voting rights, job and housing discrimination, school and residential segregation, and police

brutality were key issues that motivated the civil rights movement of the early 1960s among

Miami’s black communities (Dunn 1997; Mohl 1991). Much of Miami was segregated,

including the area’s valued beaches. Blacks were confined to using Virginia Key Beach and

another beach at Convoy Point where the Headquarters Building for BISC is currently located.

However, violations of civil rights went beyond these obvious forms of discrimination at

beaches and other locations. A group of civil rights leaders emerged during this time who made

significant strides in addressing some of the most flagrant violations of civil rights (Dunn

1997:174ff.). However, the influx of Cuban refugees was perceived by some Blacks as blunting

their efforts for addressing civil rights issues and ultimately distracting Miami officials from

resolution of key problems of concern to Miami Blacks:

In retrospect, it appears that Cuban migration short-circuited the economic, political,

and social gains Blacks were making elsewhere in the civil rights era. The exile ‘invasion’

. . . touched off thirty years of competition and conflict between Blacks and Hispanics

over jobs, residential space, government services, and political power in the south

Florida area . . . (Mohl 1991:131).

Tensions between Blacks and other racial and ethnic groups is a noteworthy characteristic of

recent black social history in Dade County (Mohl 1991). A result of these tensions was a series

of riots, the first of which occurred in 1968, with subsequent major events in 1980, 1982, and

1989, and what Dunn calls “mini-disturbances” in 1970, 1971, and 1979 (Dunn 1997:245ff).

The 1968 riots had roots in these past tensions, but the precipitating event was the arrest and

mistreatment of a black youth by Miami police. This riot ended when National Guard troops

and the Sheriff’s office were called in to stop violence that killed several Blacks. The

precipitating event for the 1980 riot was the trial and acquittal of Miami police officers in the

beating death of an unarmed motorcyclist named Arthur McDuffie. Dunn suggests the riot was

not in response to McDuffie’s death, rather “It was the failure of the criminal justice system to

convict those who committed it; and more than that, it was the intentional exclusion of Blacks

from the trial jury that inflamed many black people” (Dunn 1997:268). This four-day riot

resulted in violence, looting, multiple deaths, and in excess of 100 million dollars in property

damage. The 1982 riot was precipitated by a police shooting of a black man and the 1989 riot

was sparked by another police shooting of two black men (Dunn 1997:246-314).

As the twentieth century came to a close, Blacks in Miami-Dade made progress in voting rights,

school desegregation, political empowerment, and some socioeconomic advancement.

Residential segregation still exists, but Blacks are moving into neighborhoods previously
3-28 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

occupied only by Whites or Hispanics. Yet, authors writing about the socioeconomic

circumstances of Blacks in Miami and Dade County have not predicted a radical shift. Dunn

suggests a present and future that is consistent with themes in other writings about Miami-Dade

Blacks:

. . . it should be clear that Blacks are not likely to move ahead by great leaps and bounds

in the next century. If history is to be our teacher, Blacks will continue to make gains,

but it will be a gradual process punctuated by great events and individuals who will

shape the future in ways we cannot yet imagine. By the year 2096 most Black Dade

residents probably will be foreign born, or at least of foreign-born ancestry, and the

influence of the Caribbean will carry the day. African Americans may find themselves

an ethnic minority among other Black people (Dunn 1997:373).

3.4.2 Lifestyles and Culture 

There is limited literature regarding the traditions and lifeways of ethnic African Americans in

south Florida. They are not mentioned in Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kenney’s work on south

Florida folklife, although there is a discussion of the Bahamian and West-Indian traditions that

are part of the black culture of Miami-Dade County. Other literature focuses on the

socioeconomic, political, and civil rights issues within black communities, but lifestyles and

culture are less developed. Some of the multicultural traditions and historical materials that

indicate elements of black culture relevant for this discussion are reviewed here.

Black Lifestyles in Miami

Alongside discrimination, the Klu Klux Klan, and school and housing segregation, there was

another side to life in Overtown and Coconut Grove between 1930 and 1960 that expresses

black culture in Miami. Dance, music, and theater thrived in Overtown. Dunn (1997:143-163)

describes a segregated community in which the famous and not-so-famous black entertainers,

athletes, and artists provided entertainment for black as well as white residents. A section

known as the Avenue became a focal point for this type of entertainment:

Because of the high quality of entertainment to be found in Colored Town during its

heyday, Second Avenue between Sixth and Tenth Streets gained a national and

international reputation as Miami’s Little Broadway. . . . For over three decades the

Avenue became the place to be seen in Miami. Among the famous entertainers were Ella

Fitzgerald . . . , Cab Calloway, Benny Goodman, Louis ‘Satchmo’ Armstrong, Bessie

Smith, Billie Holiday, Nat King Cole, Count Basie, Josephine Baker, B.B. King, Sammy

Davis Jr., James Brown, Sam and Dave, Dionne Warwick, Aretha Franklin, and many,

many others (Dunn 1997:144-145).

A rich mixture of talent flowed through Overtown and added to the cultural ambiance of the

black community. However, an undercurrent in Dunn’s discussion of this cultural milieu is the

pervasiveness of racial issues and segregation as major themes of black culture. When Louis

Armstrong or Cab Calloway came to Miami, they stayed in all-black hotels. Joe Louis, the

Heavyweight World Champion, and Jack Robinson, the hall of fame baseball player,
National Park Service 3-29

experienced the same segregation as the black business owners and laborers of Miami. Whites

came to Overtown to enjoy the performances of the black entertainers and athletes, but there

were laws prohibiting mixed audiences. Garth Reeves of the Miami Times newspaper quoted

by Dunn observed: “It was on the local books that we couldn’t have mixed audiences . . . but

nobody paid much attention to it when there was a big-named entertainer in town. In fact, by

about the middle of the set, Blacks and Whites were sitting all over! They weren’t caring about

color and racial differences” (Dunn 1997:149). There were exceptions, but the carryover of

slavery and the prevalence of segregation framed the culture of the black community. For

example, Dunn also comments on the origins of the Orange Blossom Classic, which remains

an important event in the black community, noting that Blacks were prohibited from attending

Orange Bowl activities so they organized a Coconut Festival with its own football game and

parade. The elements of black culture described by Dunn are each framed by segregation and

civil rights issues. What seems to be missing are discussions of other elements of Black culture

that express values, traditions, and lifestyles that are not necessarily framed by the history of

slavery and discrimination. Yet, just as Cuban culture in Miami-Dade is pervaded by the events

of exile, the significance of slavery and discrimination may be the dominant frame of the culture

of black Miami.

Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy (1994) as well as Dunn (1997) note that there are cultural celebrations within Miami-Dade black communities that have roots in the traditions of Caribbean

immigrants from Jamaica, the Bahamas, and elsewhere. The Goombay festival held each June

in Coconut Grove represents this blending of traditions. Goombay is a multiday street celebration. Parades, street dancing, music of all flavors, including Jonkonnu bands (a music style of

drumming and singing with origins in Jamaica) from Miami and the Bahamas, as well as diverse

African American and Caribbean foods are all part of the Goombay street celebrations. 

3.4.3 Sociocultural Issues

The literature regarding Blacks in south Florida and particularly in Miami-Dade County

suggests several sociocultural issues that have been reviewed above. The focus of these issues

is civil rights, segregation, and racial tensions between Blacks and other ethnic and racial groups

in Miami-Dade. The most prominent issues in the literature are:

1) Poll taxes and other practices that prohibit full participation of African Americans in the

election process.

2) Housing and job discrimination that have limited the full participation of African Americans

in the Miami-Dade economy.

3) Residential segregation that in the past fragmented the political power of Blacks in Miami.

4) Preferential treatment of immigrant groups that is perceived to have adversely affected the

access of Blacks to public monies and other governmental assistance.

5) Unfair treatment by police and other law enforcement agencies that has resulted in past

riots and ongoing tensions between police and members of black communities.
3-30 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

In the years since the civil rights movement, Blacks in Miami-Dade have made social and

economic progress. There are more black-owned businesses, more diversity in employment,

and less residential segregation. Yet, the dominant themes that frame many expressions of

black culture remain rooted in concerns about equality, civil rights, and discrimination.

3.5 Nicaraguans and Haitians

Haitians and Nicaraguans represent a trend in the diversification of immigrants to Miami and

south Florida. Each is also a proxy for different elements of this diversification, with Haitians

representing a trend in Caribbean immigration and Nicaraguans a trend in Central American

immigration. Many Nicaraguans fled their homeland because of political upheaval and some

authors (e.g., Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:101) suggest that Nicaraguans are the

second largest Hispanic population in south Florida and represent the largest Nicaraguan

population outside of Managua. Many Haitian immigrants also fled the sociopolitical

circumstances in their country during and after the 1970s and have encountered differing levels

of success adapting to conditions in Miami. Neither Nicaraguans nor Haitians are perfect

proxies for the groups they are intended to represent in this discussion, but together these

groups suggest the cultural complexity resulting from immigration from Central American and

the wider Caribbean.

3.5.1 Population

The combination of legal and illegal immigration of both Haitians and Nicaraguans makes an

accurate determination of their population difficult. However, there are concentrations of each

that can be used to estimate the population of these groups. For example, the 1990 Census

indicated about 40,000 people in Little Haiti, where many Haitians live, and about 82 percent

of that population was black. The 2000 Census numbers showed that North Miami had a total

population of 18,686 Haitians (Miami Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning 2002).

There are estimates that between 50,000 to 70,000 Haitians arrived by boat in Miami between

1977-1981 and another 5,000 to 10,000 by airplane (Stepick 1992:58). There are other estimates

that currently about 150,000 Haitians live in south Florida and another 150,000 live in New

York (Stepick 1998:5). This same work also suggests that the census has undercounted Haitians

and other minorities. Unlike populations of Haitians in New York and other parts of the

United States, the Haitians in south Florida are almost all recent immigrants.

Boswell and Curtis (1991) cite data that estimate approximately 101,000 Nicaraguans living in

Miami in 1990, making them the second largest Hispanic population in Miami-Dade County.

However, they also note that this estimate undercounts the actual number: “Although the

Metro-Dade Planning Department estimates there were about 100,000 . . . living in Dade in

1990, most experts suspect that the true figure is higher. The correct figure is probably

somewhere between 110,000 and 150,000, although some estimate it to be as high as 175,000"

(Boswell and Curtis 1991:148). Characteristic of the segregation of neighborhoods in MiamiDade, Nicaraguan residence has been concentrated in specific localities. The wealthiest group

resides in Key Biscayne, Brickell, and Kendall. The “middle class” groups tend to reside in

Sweetwater and Fontainebleau, and the less economically well-off live in East Little Havana,

Allapattah, and Hialeah (Boswell and Curtis 1991:148). The “Little Managua” of Miami is in
National Park Service 3-31

Sweetwater, and this is the area most usually associated with Nicaraguans in Miami. Although

most immigrant groups exhibit internal population diversity, this is especially characteristic of

Nicaraguan immigrants. There are three identified ethnic subgroups:

. . . the Creole peoples of the southern Atlantic coast, the Miskito population of the Rio

Coco and Puerto Cabezas area, and the Mestizos of the Pacific Coast. These

communities do not have much contact across cultural lines. No overall Nicaraguan

cultural organization unites them, and, though they share some foodways, their cultural

heritages are quite distinct . . . (Borland n.d.)

As with Haitians, there was a small existing Nicaraguan community in Miami prior to 1980, but

most of this population is of recent origin as described in the discussion of social history.

3.5.2 Social History

Haitians and Nicaraguans are significantly different populations, with different languages, customs, traditions, and history. They share a common history of migration to Miami-Dade

County, although the sociopolitical and socioeconomic reasons for these migrations differ. Yet,

both of these groups are relatively recent migrants, and thus their social histories concern the

circumstances of immigration and adaptation to the Miami-Dade sociocultural milieu. Also,

for each group, adaptation to their new environment was influenced by other residents; in the

case of Haitians, the resident African Americans, and for Nicaraguans, resident Cuban-Americans. Haitians and Nicaraguans are obviously different cultural groups, but they share common

reasons for their immigration to Miami-Dade County. Furthermore, the numbers and circumstances of migration have been influenced to varying degrees by U.S. immigration policies.

These policies are a complex topic that is beyond the scope of the discussion here other than

to note their influence on both the flow of immigrants and their status once they arrived. 

Nicaraguans

Some of the first major migrations of Nicaraguans to the United States were in the 1930s, when

individuals fled the policies of the Somoza government. Most of these immigrants did not settle

in Florida; rather, they took up residence in major cities in the east (New York) and west (Los

Angeles). Subsequent migration was motivated primarily by economic conditions, during the

interval between1940 and the late 1970s, but the major Nicaraguan immigration started in the

1970s in response to the emergence and success of the communist Sandinistas. This first wave

of immigrants often had financial means: 

The first wave of Nicaraguan exiles was much like the early ‘Golden Exile’ wave from

Cuba in that it was comprised disproportionately of entrepreneurial elites who left

Nicaragua with resources that allowed them to established in Miami. This beachhead

of approximately 15,000 wealthy and middle class immigrants established a foundation

for the masses of poorer Nicaraguans who followed (Boswell and Curtis 1991:148). 

These were the immigrants who found residences in Key Biscayne and Brickell and some also

began purchasing condominiums in the western parts of Miami-Dade County (Portes and
3-32 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Stepick 1993:152). After the Sandinistas took political power in 1979, a second wave of

immigrants headed for the United States. These were the “middle class” of Nicaragua, the

white-collar workers, professionals, and business persons who found residence in Sweetwater.

The next wave of immigrants began in the mid-1980s and was comprised of younger men trying

to escape military service, peasants, and other persons of working class socioeconomic

background. There was a final push of immigrants in 1988 and 1989 in response to the ongoing

civil war in Nicaragua: 

. . . thousands of Nicaraguans began flowing up through Guatemala and Mexico to

Texas and on to Miami. The stream of new immigrants swelled through the last months

of 1988 until, at the beginning of 1989, it became a flood. United States Immigration and

Naturalization Service . . . officials estimated that as many as three hundred refugees a

week had been settling in Dade County since the summer of 1988 (Portes and Stepick

1993:150).

 

Between 1980 and 1985, Miami’s Nicaraguan population increased from about 0.4 percent of

the population to about 2 percent, and by 1990 it was about 5 percent (Boswell and Curtis

1991:148). A larger number of the overall population of Nicaraguan immigrants were

accounted for by these less affluent and less educated Nicaraguans, especially those in the final

1988-1989 push.

The literature about Nicaraguan immigration to Miami raises several issues about the

resettlement process: 

(1) The role of Nicaraguan immigrants in the local economy. 

The first wave of Nicaraguans had the skills and capital to establish themselves in businesses

or professions when they arrived, but subsequent immigrants, and especially the last groups,

were less skilled and had fewer resources. They found employment, but in Miami’s informal

economy of casual labor where workers were paid in cash at very low wages. Nicaraguans filled

a need for cheap unskilled labor in the local economy. Garment factories, construction jobs,

agricultural labor, and unskilled factory labor were sources of work for men and women.

Nicaraguans also developed small entrepreneurial enterprises, such as selling flowers and other

street vendor operations. 

(2) Local response to this wave of immigrants.

The response of Anglos and Blacks to Nicaraguan immigrants was influenced by the occurrence

of prior immigration in Miami-Dade County. Between 1959 and 1989, Miami was in the

process of transformation from a predominately white community with a black minority, to a

community in which Hispanics and other immigrants were the dominant population. Whites

began a process that continues to the present of moving out of Miami-Dade County into

Broward County and elsewhere in Florida. Spanish became a significant language in business

establishments, and among some residents, resentment began to develop about the

displacement of the dominant culture with that of the Hispanic immigrants. These same

sentiments were expressed towards other immigrants who arrived during the same time period.

Blacks and others who had been in the role of unskilled laborers were to some extent replaced
National Park Service 3-33

by Nicaraguans, and they also responded with resentment. For example, Portes and Stepick

quote a Miami black man as saying, “The bosses should be looking out for the people who have

lived here for years. They shouldn’t allow these foreigners to come here and take our work”

(Portes and Stepick 1993:163). 

(3) The character of Nicaraguan and Cuban relationships. 

Nicaraguans were not just fellow Hispanics for the established Cuban community. They also

were exiles who fled their country in response to the emergence of communist political

regimes. They thus shared an ethnic and political identity and a common language that was the

basis for developing ties between Nicaraguans and Cubans. Nicaraguans became employees

in Cuban establishments and residents in Cuban neighborhoods. Cubans exercised their

political power to assist Nicaraguans in the resettlement process. They fostered policies and

aid that made the process easier, despite the resentment of other groups and policies, described

below, that were not favorable to Nicaraguan resettlement in the United States. The process

of integration into the economic and social milieu of Miami was thus substantially aided by the

character of the Nicaraguan-Cuban relationship: “The incorporation of Nicaraguans into the

exile moral community in turn opened the way for their incorporation into the growing

business enclave. In both cases, the larger, more established Cuban-American community,

extended itself to absorb the Nicaraguans. ... The partnership was nevertheless one-sided, for

Cubans were in complete control” (Portes and Stepick 1993:167).

(4) Federal policy that affected the status and orientation of Nicaraguan exiles vis-a-vis other

exile groups. 

Unlike Cuban refugees, the political status of Nicaraguan immigrants and exiles has been more

tenuous. Specifically, U.S. immigration policy toward them has varied from acceptance to

advocating return to Nicaragua once the Sandinista government was replaced by a moderate

political regime. Nicaraguans were thus not exiled in the same way as Cubans; there existed the

possibility of return to their homeland with a non-communist regime. The possibility of return

is a significantly different orientation to their lives in comparison to their Cuban counterparts.

Moreover, unlike the status and assistance granted to Cubans, Nicaraguans have had more of

an overall tenuous status as immigrants, and this has undermined their local political power and

status: 

. . . the hostility of the federal government toward permanent resettlement of

Nicaraguans in the United States weakened the group’s voice in local affairs. Federal

policy rendered the situation of the working-class arrivals still more precarious, forcing

them into minimally paid and informal jobs. The struggle to be allowed to remain in the

United States also consumed much of the energy of the community, preventing it from

articulating a distinct political discourse (Portes and Stepick 1993:170).

Nicaraguans remain part of the Miami-Dade social landscape, and more recent policies of the

federal government, such as the Nicaragua Adjustment and Central American Relief Act,

established some relief for Nicaraguans who wished to stay in the United States legally.

Additionally, applications for Temporary Permanent Status have been extended, and other
3-34 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

policies and procedures of immigration law have attempted to address the “not quite exile”

status of many Nicaraguans residing in Miami-Dade County. 

Nicaraguan Lifestyle and Culture

Most immigrant groups are not homogenous, but Nicaraguans exhibit more cultural diversity

than Cuban or Haitians. As noted previously, there are three distinct subgroups of

Nicaraguans: 

1) The Miskito speak their own language in addition to Spanish and English. These are the

indigenous people of Nicaragua who primarily reside on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua.

The ethnic Miskito of Miami often reside in apartments in the Miami Shores and Miami

Beach areas of Miami-Dade County. They are among the most anglicized of the Nicaraguan

immigrants (Borland n.d.).

2) The Costeños are Creole people who speak English and often Spanish. The Costeños, who

are often professionals, have resided in Miami since the 1950s, primarily in Carol City and

other nearby neighborhoods (Borland n.d.). There are estimates of about 6,000 to 10,000

Creole and Miskito in Miami-Dade County, with the remainder of the Nicaraguan

population being the Hispanic Mestizos (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:102).

3) The Mestizo are Hispanic and speak Spanish as their primary language. In their homeland,

Mestizos are concentrated on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. Mestizos are the largest

segment of the Nicaraguan population in Miami and they tended to arrive after 1979 (Portes

and Stepick 1993). The Mestizo Nicaraguans tend to live in Sweetwater and the working

class areas of Little Havana and Hialeah. 

These three groups appear to live separate social and cultural lives with little interaction and

without a uniting cultural organization (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994; Borland n.d.).

There are two aspects of Nicaraguan culture discussed in the literature reviewed for this work:

religious festivals and foodways. Although this may reflect the focused nature of this review,

some authors suggest that other key aspects of Nicaraguan culture, such as occupational

traditions and craftsmanship, have been blunted by the circumstances of immigration. For

example, Borland offers the following example:

. . . traditional fishing crafts, and mahogany and rosewood carving and furniture making

have proved impracticable. For instance, on the Atlantic Coast the dory or dugout

canoe remains the major means of transportation. Thus, any adult male who grew up

there knows how to build a dory. He simply goes to the forest, chooses a suitable tree,

and starts chopping. 

As retired Miskito-Creole carpenter Sydney Willis queried, ‘Where would you get the tree

trunk around Miami without getting arrested’ (Borland n.d.:10). This type of example suggests

a discontinuity between the current social circumstances of Nicaraguans and their cultural
 The following summaries of these Patronal Festivals are based on Borland, n.d., pages 4-13. 1

National Park Service 3-35

traditions. The necessity to adapt under difficult circumstances focuses life on the most

immediate needs and limits opportunities for other expressions of culture. This is not to

suggest there is a dearth of Nicaraguan culture, only that current literature reviewed for this

work tends to focus on the cultural essentials of food and religion.

Mestizo and Creole/Miskito Nicaraguans have different religious traditions. The latter are

Moravian, reflecting the activities of Moravian missionaries in their homeland, and Mestizos

are primarily Catholic. The Nicaraguan Catholic traditions, and for that matter other

Caribbean and Hispanic Catholic practices, emphasize “patronal festivals” that are associated

with particular towns. In Miami these festivals have been adapted to local circumstances. They

are often held in rented halls or other larger spaces, they have some modified form of

procession, and they also include music and dance. Each festival celebrates a patron saint and

the celebration itself may last several days. The following are the more prevalent patronal

festival days with some of the practices associated with each.1

• San Sabastian, January 21.

This festival has a characteristic processional dance known as the El Toro Huaco (the Huaco

Bull). It is the most traditional dance performed by Miami Nicaraguans in these festivals.

The dancers, “ . . . mostly children, form two lines facing one another. Between them twirls

a man sporting a cow’s mask attached to a kite-like structure he holds over his back. The

dancers alternately charge and retreat from this cow, employing a methodical stamping

step” (Borland n.d.:4). 

• Santa Ana, July 26.

This festival does not have the elaborate procession of San Sabastian, but individuals

dressed in street clothes or perhaps wearing masks will enter the procession if they have

made a promise to this Saint.

• Santo Domingo de Guzman, usually held in August.

This festival was originally sponsored by some Nicaraguan elite trying to provide a means

of community integration, but the effort failed and split into two events. One held by the

elite is essentially a horse show and social event. The other festival is held in Little Havana

and is attended by younger men.

• San Jeronimo, September.

A one-day celebration with a mass and then a marimba dance in which participants don

costumes or may dance in their street clothes.

• La Purisima and La Greteria, November 26 through early December.

This is the festival that celebrates the patron Saint of Nicaragua, the Virgen de la Asunción.

The celebration is focused around private parties held in homes where individuals are

treated to Nicaraguan foods and asked to recite rosaries and say prayers. There is also a

public celebration held in the evenings wherein young people and others travel around

shouting traditional sayings and receiving gifts in return. 
3-36 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The Miskito and Creole Nicaraguans have different religious traditions reflecting their

Moravian beliefs. The major celebration among these Nicaraguans occurs at Thanksgiving

when there is a Harvest Festival. Palo de mayo is a traditional Creole music and dance

associated with maypole celebrations, but adapted to the celebrations at the harvest festivals

(Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:109-110). At these festivals, “people simply dance to

palo de mayo and reggae recording. In recent years, the palo de mayo dance has become so

suggestive that many older Creoles scorn it as obscene” (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994:110).

Food is an important aspect of culture that reflects the preferences and practices of a cultural

group. The literature regarding Nicaraguans reflects the different food traditions of Creole and

Mestizo groups in Miami. Nacatamales are the traditional foods of the Mestizo, which are

combinations of pork, cornmeal, and spices that are steamed or boiled in banana leaf. Pork,

chicken, beef, along with friend plantains and green bananas are also traditional foods, as are

pork rind snacks known as vigoron. Many traditional foods are sold by Nicaraguan street

vendors known as fritangas in Little Havana and other parts of Miami’s Latin communities. In

contrast, Creole traditions are based more in the Caribbean style and use coconut milk as a

common ingredient in cooking. One-pot meals known as “ron don” include fish or meat served

on top of vegetables. The Creole peoples do not have the same types of street presence with

their foods as do the Mestizos, and as such, the differences are only important as indicators of

the larger cultural differences among Nicaraguans in Miami-Dade County.

Nicaraguan Sociocultural Issues

The sociocultural issues regarding Nicaraguans in Miami-Dade County expressed in the

literature review for this work are as follows:

(1) Class and Cultural Divisions.

The Nicaraguans of Miami-Dade represent at least three different cultural groups.

Additionally, there are class divisions among Nicaraguans that also fragment this community,

as indicated in the Santo Domingo de Guzman festival, where the more elite Nicaraguans and

more working class Nicaraguans each instituted their own festivals. This expresses a larger

pattern of class differences among the elite and working class Nicaraguans: “The flood of

working-class arrivals had erased the relatively positive image of elite exiles, and many

responded by distancing themselves from the newcomers . . . ” (Portes and Stepick 1993:172).

The effect of the cultural and class divisions has been a fragmented Nicaraguan community

without the leadership that enabled Cubans to successfully adapt after their immigration.

(2) Stigmatization and Identity Ambivalence.

The later waves of Nicaraguan refugees were stigmatized in much the same way that Haitians

were. They were characterized as uneducated, unskilled, dirty, and undesirable. This type of

stigmatization in part accounts for the separation of earlier waves of immigrants who had a

more positive image in the community. However, rather than becoming “invisible,” as some

Haitians have in response to similar stigmatization, the response of the Nicaraguans was to
National Park Service 3-37

emphasize class differences and to some degree submerge their identity (Portes and Stepick

1993). 

In response to U.S. immigration policy, and in part, because of the ability to return to Nicaragua

after the fall of the Sandinistas, Nicaraguans have not had the same “exile” identity as Cubans.

The possibility of returning home further added to ambivalence regarding Nicaraguan identity

in Miami-Dade. Stigmatization, immigration status, and class differences have each contributed

to concerns about Nicaraguan identity among all classes and Nicaraguan subgroups.

(3) Undocumented Status and Its Socioeconomic Consequences.

There have been a substantial number of undocumented Nicaraguans in Miami-Dade County

(Garvin 2000). The effect of this status is that these individuals often have been restricted to

lower paying jobs and ongoing uncertainty about their ability for better paying jobs and

advancement in the work force. Additionally, this status has further added to the stigmatization

of Nicaraguans and otherwise calls into question their ability to ever be integrated into the

social and economic fabric of south Florida. 

Haitians

As with Cubans, Bahamians, Trinidadians, and other Caribbean island people, Haitians have

had a presence in south Florida for an extended period of time (Gannon 1996). However, there

was no major concentration of Haitians in Miami-Dade County until large-scale flight from

Haiti began in 1980. Then images of “boat people” filled television screens and newspaper stories, sometimes with the tragedy of drowning, as boats capsized in attempts to flee to Florida.

Stepick (1998), Portes and Stepick (1993), and Stepick (1991) describe some of the key issues

of the Haitian immigration between 1980 and the mid-1990s, and the settlement of these refugees in what is now Miami-Dade County. Although not the only important issue of Haitian social history in Miami, it is critical to understand the Haitian experience in Miami-Dade County.

Although Haitians fleeing by boat arrived as early as 1963, and then again in 1973 and 1977, it

was the period between 1977 and 1981 that saw the greatest influx of immigrants to Florida.

During this time period, between 60,000 to 80,000 Haitians arrived in Florida either by boat or

plane, the majority of them in highly publicized boat landings, thus becoming known as the

“boat people.” The Haitian arrivals coincided with the Mariel exodus from Cuba. This was a

time when Miami and other Florida residents, as well as U.S. immigration policies, were not

especially welcoming (Stepick 1998). Unlike the Cuban or Nicaraguan immigrants, Haitians

were not fleeing a communist government. Some fled for political reasons and others certainly

for economic reasons (Stepick 1998). However, others suggest that a simple “politicaleconomic” dichotomy does not explain a more complex situation:

The reasons for mass migration . . . have been twofold; economic and political oppression. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service attempts to dichotomize the two reasons, but they are really inextricably linked in that country. They are

two symptoms of the same fatal disease. Many who were poor were also at the mercy

of the ruling class and their military control forces. Those who criticized the Duvaliers
3-38 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

were denied property, liberty, and even life, thereby impoverishing their families. Even

a simple desire to seek economic opportunity outside the island was construed as

treasonable activity, punishable by indefinite incarceration (Mosley-Dozier 1989).

Haitians continue to leave their country and travel to Miami, although today the numbers are

a relative trickle in comparison to the 1977-1981 time period (cf. Viglucci 1999). They were at

once pushed by socioeconomic and political issues, and pulled by their own images of Miami

and Florida: 

The image of Miami rises like a specter over all of Haitian consciousness. Whatever one

can accomplish, obtain, or develop is dwarfed and made insignificant by the possibilities

of Miami. Miami is the place where you can earn a month’s wages in a day or a year’s

wages in a week. . . . (Mohl 1991:122). 

However, the images and dreams of Miami and Florida clashed with the realities Haitians

experienced after they arrived. There are several issues in the literature regarding this

experience that are noteworthy: (1) the stigmatization of Haitian refugees; (2) immigration

policies that influenced the status and identity of Haitian refugees; (3) Haitian refugee

socioeconomic status; and (4) relationships with Blacks in Miami. 

(1) Stigmatization of Haitian immigrants.

Media images of arriving boat people began a portrayal of Haitians as less than desirable

immigrants to south Florida: “Photographs of shirtless Black refugees huddled aboard barely

seaworthy craft evoked images buried deep in the American collective mind. Like the slave

ships of yore, these boats also carried a cargo of Black laborers . . . and nobody wanted them”

(Portes and Stepick 1993:51). Haitians were generally stigmatized by media coverage as noted

by Stepick in his quotation from Robert Lawless’ 1992 work, Haiti’s Bad Press: “Few people

would disagree with the statement that favorable reports about Haiti are as rare as positive

declarations on the nutritional value of cannibalism or the healing power of black magic”

(Stepick 1998:2). Haitians were incorrectly identified as having high occurrences of

tuberculosis and AIDS and they were often stereotyped as practitioners of the occult including

voodoo, which itself is significantly misunderstood (Stepick 1998). The overall effect was to

stigmatize Haitian identity, which had a chilling effect on their integration into local

communities and on their status as immigrants: “Many Haitians lost their jobs, and negative

stereotypes and fears of Haitians became firmly embedded in the general south Florida

population. Haitians were perceived by many to be not only disease-ridden, but also

uneducated, unskilled peasants who could only prove a burden to the community” (Stepick

1992:58). This type of stigmatization also resulted in some Haitians hiding their identity or

trying to pass for African Americans (Stepick 1992:1998).

(2) Immigration policy that influenced Haitian Identity and Status.

In response to concerns about Haitian refugees, the Immigration and Naturalization Service

instituted policies to intercept and otherwise restrict the flow of Haitian refugees and to

otherwise discourage the stay of these refugees in the United States (Stepick 1992, 1998). Portes
National Park Service 3-39

and Stepick argue that the Cuban refugees of the same time period were treated differently

because of existing policies and perceptions regarding Haitian circumstances of immigration:

“The difference between the Cubans and Haitians streaming into Miami had less to do with

individual motivations than with the country they left behind, the community that received

them, and their color” (Portes and Stepick 1993:53). Some Haitians were also jailed upon their

arrival in the United States and others were denied work permits. There were pressures from

local groups who believed Haitians were undesirable and therefore they should be deported

(Stepick 1992:60). The net effect of these policies and practices was to further stigmatize

Haitians. Furthermore, many of the Haitians in the county faced immediate deportation

because of their nationality. Ultimately, some of these policies were acknowledged and

reversed through legislation, such as the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act of 1997. This act

intended to reverse policies of the past that were based more on nationality, race, and language

rather than the particular circumstances of the refugees. 

(3) Haitian refugee socioeconomic status.

Haitians, even those who have a reasonable education by Haitian standards, are not as educated

as some other immigrant groups, and this places them at a socioeconomic disadvantage. Portes

and Stepick (1993:57) cite statistics for Haitian immigrants revealing that for the 499 refugees

they surveyed, the average was 4.6 years of education, 75 percent were single, about 35 percent

were jailed on their arrival in the United States, 31 percent had been jobless in Haiti, and 59

percent were at or below poverty level, while about 29 percent were receiving welfare.

Although these 499 cases are not the whole story, it is also suggested that the overall

socioeconomic status of many Haitian refugees was relatively low in comparison to Cuban

refugees and to U.S. residents (Stepick 1998). The effect of this is to place these refugees at a

comparative disadvantage because of limited education and job skills. Haitians have not fared

as well as Cubans and many other refugee groups. In fact, their overall socioeconomic status

has remained low, although there is a Haitian middle class that has prospered in Miami. This

group is estimated to be about 15,000 to 20,000. However, the literature focuses on the lower

socioeconomic status of many Haitians: 

For many, especially in the 1980s, either no opportunities were open or the only work

available was low wage, dead-end jobs. In a 1983 survey of Haitian refugees . . . more

than one-third had never worked since coming to the United States. Nearly 30 percent

of the males and more than 70 percent of the females were unemployed and looking for

work. . . . Haitians’ incorporation in south Florida’s economy has improved with time.

Two years later when we re-surveyed the same individuals in 1985, unemployment had

dropped by almost two-thirds. . . . By the 1990s South Florida Haitian unemployment

rates remained high, but they had begun to approximate those of African Americans

(Stepick 1998:35). 

Furthermore, it is suggested that these circumstances resulted in a significant disadvantage

when combined with the stigmatization of Haitian identity: “Haitians were not so much the

bottom of the labor market as outside it; they were neglected by public welfare agencies and

looked down on by all other segments of the local community, including Blacks” (Portes and

Stepick 1993:58).
3-40 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

(4) Relationships with Blacks in Miami.

Haitians are predominately black and Stepick and others suggest this fact affected their

immigration status and their integration into south Florida communities. Just as Cubans

assisted Nicaraguans in their inclusion into Miami-Dade society, Blacks of Miami also assisted

Haitians. Black leaders in Congress and elsewhere, including Miami, noted the discrimination

experienced by Haitians and put forth efforts to change policies and intervene on behalf of

Haitians (Stepick 1998). However, the relationship between Miami Blacks and Haitians is

complex. On a general level, reports would indicate that Blacks viewed Haitians as well as

Nicaraguans and other immigrants as competitors for the jobs they traditionally held in Miami’s

economy. Haitians were not eager to assume a black identity in the United States because of

the history of discrimination and subjugation that especially characterized the experience of

Southern Blacks. Haitians also were largely segregated from black neighborhoods in their Little

Haiti residences. There appears to be a clear ambivalence, as reflected in existing literature,

regarding Blacks’ acceptance of Haitians and Haitians desire for separate identity. This

ambivalence seems especially apparent in younger Haitians who socialize with African

Americans in schools (Stepick 1998).

Lifestyle and Culture

Nicaraguans and Haitians each have cultures and lifestyles that differ from those of the

dominant culture of the United States in language, lifestyle, and other aspects of culture, but

their cultures of origin are ones that are rich, diverse, and complex. As these refugees have

established new residences in Miami-Dade County, aspects of their culture have arrived with

them. Our intent here is to provide an overview of what the literature describes as some of the

salient features of these cultures and lifestyles among these groups in Miami-Dade County.

Haitians in Miami-Dade County

Language

Haiti is a bilingual country with French and Creole being the primary languages. French is the

language of prestige and the upper class and it is also the language that united the diverse groups

brought to Haiti from Africa. Creole is a French-based pidgin language with elements of the

traditional languages of the African groups. It has a subject-verb-object word order, and most

of the lexicon is French based, although tonal inflections are less pronounced than in French.

Until about the 1920s, Creole was primarily a spoken language. In Haiti, about 90 percent of

the population speaks primarily Creole. In Miami-Dade County, Haitian immigrants recognize

the necessity to speak English. Although at home parents and children are likely to speak

Creole with one another, English has been adopted as a necessity. Haitians also value speaking

their language as a means to maintain connections to their home country (Stepick 1998). Creole

is also an important expressive medium for Haitians since it embodies some of the traditions

of African heritage. For example, there is a rich tradition of proverbs as well as children’s folk

tales, known as kont, derived from African traditions (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994:131).
National Park Service 3-41

Family

Family is an important value among Haitian immigrants as it links individuals in their new

community as well as their homeland. Family values provide expectations about emotional

support, financial support, and mutual assistance. These expectations are not diminished by

the distance between individuals living in Miami and those living in Haiti. In fact, Haitians

living in the United States are expected to send money to other family members living in their

homeland. Among those living in the United States, these values are sometimes extended to

individuals who constitute a reconstructed family (i.e., a family recomposed after immigration

that may include blood or non-blood relatives). Families are also a basis for patterns of Haitian

immigration: “Haitian individuals within families immigrate sequentially, as if each immigrant

were a link in a chain between Haiti and the United States” (Stepick 1998:16). Arriving

immigrants (known as “just comes”) often find temporary homes with relatives; they are

directed into job networks by relatives, and otherwise their inclusion into their new

circumstances is aided if not buffered by a resident family. The dominant ties are to the nuclear

family, but these family members may be separated by long distances either for short or long

periods of time. The value of nuclear family ties motivates individuals to reconstitute those

families and Haitian households can appear to be fluid as ties are renewed and broken

according to changing immigration circumstances. These values about family and the

circumstances of Haitian status within the United States have made for households that are

flexible: 

Haitian households and families thus are flexible and expansive. Families help each

other and when necessary or convenient they incorporate a wide range of relatives and

even non-relatives. Among the nonprofessional classes, households, and the individuals

within them are also constantly on the move, changing addresses as houses become too

small or individuals move to find their own quarters (Stepick 1998:18).

Religion

Catholicism is the dominant Christian religion among Haitians, although Portes and Stepick

(1993) suggest that about 40 percent of Haitian immigrants are Protestant. However, there is

an old Haitian saying that “Haitians are 80 percent Catholic, 20 percent Protestantism, and 100

percent Vodoun” (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:129). As with Cubans, Christian

beliefs provide an important link to the Haitian homeland and religion is also a significant

resource for assistance with adaptation to the circumstances of immigration. The literature

about Haitian Catholicism and Protestants takes second place to the literature about Haitian

practices known as Voodoo or Vodoun. Vodoun, like Santeria, has roots in traditional African

religious practices that have merged with elements of Catholicism. It is estimated that perhaps

50 percent of Haitians practice Vodoun, but more importantly, Vodoun expresses a world view

that shapes the outlook of a larger number of Haitians.

Haitian Vodoun entails the belief in a single diety, but there are also other types of spiritual

beings including ancestral spirits and spirits representing the forces of life (e.g., health,

childbirth, good fortune, evil, happiness). Some of these spirits can possess persons, and others

can be invoked to cure illness. In fact, a major component of Voudon beliefs concerns rituals
3-42 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

to cure individuals from illness or injury by using herbs and music-filled ceremonies to cure

sickness or injury. Both men and women can be Vodoun priests (houngan and mambo,

respectively). These priests preside over ceremonies, often held outdoors in their homeland,

but more frequently in basements or living rooms among Haitian immigrants. The traditional

ceremonies often are focused around a poto mitin or center pole. Songs, and especially drum

music, evoke the loa spirits who “mount” or possess individuals during the ceremony. Sacrifice,

often animal sacrifice, is also a part of these ceremonies, which is intended to appease the loa

spirits (Davis 1985). The practice of Vodoun among Haitians in the United States is less

obvious than its practice in their homeland. As with many other aspects of Haitian culture,

there is a stigma associated with Vodoun. Some authors suggest that these beliefs and practices

are among the most misunderstood aspects of Haitian culture (Stepick 1998).

Little Haiti

The center of Haitian cultural life in Miami-Dade County is Little Haiti. It is located on the

northeast side of Miami, bounded on the west by I-95, the east by Biscayne Boulevard, I-95 on

the south, and 87 street on the north. Little Haiti expresses some of the art and architecture th

of Haitian lifestyles. There are brightly colored street signs in French and Creole with themes

depicting Haitian life, as well restaurants and grocery stores selling preferred foods. Fish, rice,

beans, dried conch, and a hot relish called pimet are likely to be found in both the restaurants

as well as the grocery stores. Street vendors are likely to be selling sweet potato pudding, puff

pastries, and tamarind or other tropical fruit drinks, while a rara drummer on the corner

accompanies a vaccines player (a type of flute) (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:126-136).

Little Haiti is at once a vibrant expression of the art, architecture, and sounds of Haitian culture

and also a reminder of the difficulties of Haitian immigrants in the United States. Little Haiti

is also a place of multiple families living in cramped quarters and where workers are mostly

employed at the lowest levels of Miami-Dade’s economy. It is also a place where Haitians have

tried to make their mark, as indicated by numerous small businesses started by Haitian

entrepreneurs. 

3.5.3 Sociocultural Issues

A range of sociocultural issues for Haitians in Miami-Dade are reviewed by Portes and Stepick

(1993) and Stepick (1998). These issues can be organized into several themes concerning (1)

social status and prejudice; (2) cultural identity; (3) economic integration; and (4) the Haitian

enclave. Here we outline the basic issues and refer the reader to the previous citations for more

extended discussions of these topics.

(1) Social Status and Prejudice

Haitians have experienced substantial prejudice and discrimination because they are at once

black, Creole/French speakers, and immigrants. They were jailed more often than other

refugees. Federal policy was intended to exclude them from reaching the United States and,

once here, to deport them back to Haiti, and other practices and polices regarding Haitians

resulted in an “official unwelcoming” (Stepick 1998) by the United States. Haitians were

unjustly accused of having excessive rates of AIDS and TB, and otherwise assumed a pariah
National Park Service 3-43

status in the United States. Stepick, following Lawless (1992), also emphasizes the power of

press coverage to amplify prejudice against Haitians. He suggests that Haitians experience

more prejudice than African Americans because of such coverage in concert with the effects of

U.S. immigration policy and the response of local communities to Haitians (Stepick 1998:1115).

Indeed, noting that Blacks were among those who came to the aid of Haitian immigrants, they

also participated in the “unwelcoming” of these immigrants. Among Blacks, “The word Haitian

became an epithet, standing for foreign, backward, dirty, unintelligible, and ignorant” (Portes

and Stepick 1993:191). Haitians were thus the subject of substantial prejudice that adversely

affected their overall socioeconomic status within Miami-Dade’s economy and social structure.

(2) Cultural Identity

Haitians formed cultural groups (e.g., Sostete Koukouy) to promote their heritage and lifeways.

These groups were formed in response to stigma attached to Haitian identity. Haitians

attempted to maintain their own cultural identity rather than assume that of the Blacks in

Miami. In fact, they often made special efforts to distinguish themselves from African

Americans through the promotion of cultural groups and organizations. Furthermore, Haitians

resisted “ . . . being pulled down to the economic level of native Blacks and of having their

distinct immigrant identity submerged into that of the urban underclass” (Portes and Stepick

1993:190). At the same time, some Haitians, often younger school-age children and young

adults, did assume a black identity in response to the prejudice and stigma attached to their

Haitian heritage. Stepick (1998) describes a process of individuals “covering up” their Haitian

identity as they passed as U.S. Blacks or as Whites. This process of having one identity at home

and another in the public area is inherently stressful. It also contrasts with the experiences of

Haitians in other parts of the United States (Zephir 1996).

(3) Economic Integration

The social status and prejudice against Haitians limited their economic opportunities. Many

of the working class took jobs in the informal economy in very low paying jobs. With limited

opportunity for upward mobility, Haitians remained among the poorest immigrants in MiamiDade County. After an initial period when employers shunned Haitian workers, they

subsequently did find employment, but mostly in low paying positions. 

Haitians in south Florida through the 1980s overwhelmingly concentrated in farm work

and low-paying factory or service work such as back of the house jobs in hotels and

restaurants: . . . hotel maids, janitors, kitchen helpers, busboys and dishwashers.

According to the census, most Haitians hold lower-level positions with the largest

segment in restaurants, over one-third in services . . . and over one-fourth working as

low skilled laborers . . . (Stepick 1998:41). 

Portes and Stepick (1993) and Stepick (1998) discuss a Haitian middle class that is successful

and integrated into the economic mainstream. However, as a counterpoint, these same authors

also note that in some instances, this middle class appears invisible because of their desire to

hide their Haitian identity. 
 The term “Cracker,” while now more widely known as a derogatory term for rural whites, has a 2

more specific–and less insulting–definition in Florida. The Florida Crackers are Whites of Celtic descent that

first settled South Florida around the mid-eighteenth century, usually having migrated to the Florida

Everglades from Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas (Library of Congress 2000).

3-44 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

(4) Haitian Economic Enclave

Little Haiti may have developed as a cultural enclave, but it is underdeveloped as an economic

enclave. The success of the Cuban enclave in Miami invites comparison with other immigrant

groups such as the Nicaraguans and Haitians. For Haitians there are several factors cited as

inhibiting the success of a Haitian economic enclave. One factor is what could be termed the

“leakage” of income from middle class Haitians who consciously do not buy goods or services

from other Haitians, nor do they employ other Haitians (Stepick 1998:54-55). A second factor

is the lower level of “human capital” (i.e., skills, education, training) among Haitians in

comparison to Cubans (Portes and Stepick 1993). Other factors are (1) the federal assistance

offered to Cubans that was not offered to Haitians and (2) the absence of linkages to existing

Haitian businesses (Stepick 1992:77). In combination, Haitians have not built the same business

infrastructure as their Cuban neighbors, nor have they had the opportunities for upward

mobility that would have provided resources for economic development. The combination of

these factors account for major reasons why there is no Haitian economic enclave. On the

other hand, Haitian businesses have developed strong ties with their homeland and have

success in supplying goods and services to that market. This has promoted the success of some

Haitian enterprises, if not a Haitian economic enclave (Stepick 1998).

3.6 Cracker Culture in South Florida

South Florida and Miami-Dade County have a diverse “non-ethnic” population. GermanAmericans, Irish-Americans, Greek-Americans, and other mixed ethnic, or for purposes of this

analysis “non-ethnic,” identities exist here as they do in all other regions of the United States.

These populations have what might be termed “American culture” or the beliefs and lifestyles

associated with the majority population in the United States. Regional and local variations exist

in American culture such as “southern culture” or “cowboy culture” in the western United

States. These regional and location variations have distinct customs, beliefs, and worldviews

that express and give meaning to particular lifestyles. In south Florida there are self-defined

“Rednecks,” “old families,” “Crackers,” “Conchs,” and “Southerners” among many others that

define regional and local variations of American culture. While there is an extensive literature

about “Southern culture” (e.g., Owsley 1949) in the United States, this work did not uncover

any extensive works about the Florida variation of “southern culture” other than the literature

about “Crackers.” And while there may be more generalized literature about “rednecks” or 2

“old family” culture in other areas of the United States, this work also did not uncover a welldeveloped literature about the Florida expression of these other variations of American culture.

A more exhaustive examination of the literature might reveal such specific works, but our

search did not yield such specific works. Consequently, this section will focus on the Florida

expression of “Cracker” culture not because it represents a “non-ethnic” example for this

region, but rather because it seems to organize some of the diversity about rural, Southern,

traditional ways of life. Other local variations of American culture certainly influence responses
National Park Service 3-45

to natural resources and land management issues. These are important cultural contributions

to local communities, but they are also the most diffusely expressed in existing literature. The

task of integrating and organizing a coherent discussion of this literature is beyond the scope

of what can be accomplished here, but American culture significantly influences responses to

natural resource and land management issues, and these deserve more focused attention in

future research efforts.

The term “Crackers” is a name given to a group of primarily Celtic origin who accompanied the

English into Florida. Today in south Florida, Crackers are not a well-defined group who live in

distinct neighborhoods or geographic areas. However, at one point in Florida history they were.

In recent history, Cracker has referred to a lifestyle or cultural orientation associated with rural

living and practicing a self-sufficient way of living in which people built their own style of homes

and provided for their families by hunting, fishing, and otherwise living off the land. For some,

“Cracker” is a slur referring to rural living, poor whites. For others it indicates a “native

Floridian” who pioneered life in the rural areas of Florida. Still others associate the term

“Cracker”with bigoted whites. “Cracker” usually refers to Caucasian Floridians who live in rural

areas and have some association with an agricultural way of life. The description of “Crackers”

here focuses on the lifeways and traditions of Crackers as expressed in existing literature.

3.6.1 Social History and Population

Until the mid-nineteenth century, the South was less populated than the North and many early

Southern settlers were Scots, Irish, Welsh, and others from what is often termed the “celtic

fringe” of the British Isles. In fact, some authors argue that the cultural differences between the

Northern and Southern colonies and later states is a direct result of different cultural groups that

populated these regions (McWhiney 1988). Some of the Celtic emigrants were known as

Crackers with the exact origin of that term being controversial, but apparently relating to the

herding or farming practices of some of these emigrants. For example, “Cracker is one of the

oldest epithets for white Southerners and has been used to describe, among other folk types,

both the stereotypical poor white farmer cracking corn and the prosperous farmer who owned

a slave or two, farmed and raised cattle and hogs, and used a long whip with a tip called a

cracker” (Storter 2000:xv). Other authors suggest that the name describes individuals living in

small “cracker box” houses or that these were individuals skilled at “cracking a cow whip”

(Bucuvalas, Bulger and Kennedy 1994:38-40). The term “Cracker” appears to describe

populations that lived in Georgia as well as Florida who practiced a farming and often a herding

lifestyle (McWhiney 1988:51-104). 

Crackers first appear in Florida about the mid-18th century. Although they appear to have

settled throughout Florida, they concentrated in the Everglades region. Crackers lived a

distinctive lifestyle, focused around cattle, farming, hunting, fishing, and sometimes

moonshining. Their distinctive way of life appears to have attracted the attention of more than

one traveler who commented on Florida Crackers. For example, Bucuvalas, Bulger, and

Kennedy quote an 1882 New England traveler’s observation of Crackers:

The entire trip that day was through an unsettled region, the only human beings living

anywhere along the road being four or five families of Florida natives, the genuine,
3-46 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

unadulterated ‘cracker’ – the clay-eating, gaunt, pale, tallowy, leather-skinned sort —

stupid, stolid, staring eyes, dead and lusterless; unkempt hair, generally tow-colored; and

such a shiftless, slouching manner! Simply white savages – or living white mummies

would, perhaps, better indicate their dead alive looks and actions. Who, or what, these

‘crackers’ are, from whom descended, of what nationality, or what becomes of them, is

one among the many unsolved mysteries in this State. Stupid and shiftless, yet sly and

vindictive, they are a block in the pathway of civilization, settlement, and enterprise

wherever they exist (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:38).

This less than flattering description of Crackers is one that seems common for the time. Other

scholars also suggest that Southern Crackers, if not Southerners in general, were not well

evaluated by their Northern brethren:

Observers reported that Southerners simply had a leisurely attitude toward life. In 1789,

for example, a visitor described Virginians as ‘indolent, unindustrious, poor credit risks,

. . . [and] spoiled by the abundance of Negroes,’ who also ‘prefer idleness to work.’ Other

contemporaries mentioned the ‘sloth and indolence’ of Southerners, especially the lazy

ways of the ‘crackers,’ but most travelers claimed that being unhurried was typical of all

sorts of Southerners. ‘The planter takes his time’ noted a visitor to the South. ‘Leisure

and ease are inmates of his roof. He takes no note of time. . . . A clock, almanac, and a

good fire, are hard things to find in a planter’s house. . . . The word, haste, is not in a

Southerner’s vocabulary’ (McWhiney 1988:44-45).

Southerners in general and Crackers in particular are described as prone to leisure if not lazy and

overly fond of alcohol, gaiety, and the sensual pleasures of life. These characterizations appear

similar to English assessments of Irish and other Celtic peoples whom they conquered, often

describing and depicting them as somewhat less than human. It seems plausible that these early

characterizations of Southerners and Crackers are heavily influenced by stereotypical, English

assumptions about Celtic peoples in general. Nonetheless, such descriptions appear often in

travelers’ tales and other literature about the early and later Cracker populations in the South,

but their accuracy is worth questioning. Certainly among some present-day Floridians, the term

Cracker is not derogatory, but rather a description worn with considerable pride. For example:

The Florida Cracker developed a culture that was for the most part rural, clannish,

leisure-loving, yet combative – Celtic in nature. This culture thrived in the wilderness

that was south Florida and has been handed down to the Crackers of today. As native

white Floridians have reclaimed their heritage, ‘Cracker’ is a label they wear with pride,

proclaiming their origins by covering their car bumpers with ‘Florida Native’ stickers.

Florida Cracker E.A. ‘Frog Smith’ was asked a few years ago what he would be if he

wasn’t a Cracker. His instant reply: ‘Ashamed’ (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy

1994:38-39).

Crackers were ranchers, farmers, and fishermen in south Florida. They were among the later

pioneers of south Florida, but they were without a doubt “pioneers” who cleared land, raised

cattle, and fished for a living while exhibiting a discernable lifestyle. This pioneer history is

important for present-day images and identities of Florida Crackers. Yet, as Florida urbanized,
National Park Service 3-47

Cracker ways of life became less an everyday reality and more of a reference to native-born

Floridians who practiced a variety of urban and rural lifestyles (cf. Derr 1998). This is not to

suggest that Cracker lifestyles no longer exist, but the Cracker way of life described in traditional

literature is mostly past.

3.6.2 Lifestyles and Culture

Traditional Cracker culture is the focus of this discussion of lifestyles and culture. Modern

Crackers derive their current ways of life from these traditional practices and those who use

Cracker as a descriptor of a native Floridian identity look to these traditions as a source of

meaning for this identity. This discussion focuses primarily on prominent features of traditional

Cracker culture as expressed in Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy’s 1994 discussion of Cracker

customs and some accounts of Cracker families (e.g., Storter 2000; Denham and Brown 2000).

Cracker Architecture

Cracker architecture is cited as distinctive and derived from their adaptation to Florida’s tropical

climate. However, there is some variability in how Cracker architecture is described. For

example, some authors indicate that in response to the hot and humid Florida climate, Cracker

houses were either one- or two-story open houses with a porch wrapping around at least two

sides and sometimes around the entire structure. Doors were oriented so they could be opened

for flow-through ventilation and windows were tall as were the ceilings. Peaked roofs made

from cypress also allowed for ventilation (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:57-59). Other

authors emphasize that Cracker houses were built for summertime conditions, high off the

ground to improve circulation, and a side benefit was that the raised space allowed a safe spot

for livestock. These houses also are described as having kitchens separated from the main house

but connected by a “dog trot.” Those houses with “dog trots” had more of a figure “H”

construction and these are often considered “classic” Cracker style houses (Haase 1992).

However, regardless of the particular form of these houses, they were oriented to increasing

“natural” air conditioning and sheltering people and animals from the sun while also providing

an outdoor porch for socializing, shelling peas, or just cooling off.

Cracker Verbal Style

Crackers are described as a people who appreciated colorful use of language and story telling,

traits related to their Celtic ancestry (McWhiney 1988). In various parts of Florida there are

storytelling festivals that celebrate the Cracker propensity for telling stories and relating

everyday happenings in colorful ways. There is also an expansive popular literature of Cracker

tales (e.g., Haase 1992; Bruce 1996; Simmons and Ogden 1998) as well as lists of expressions said

to characterize Cracker speech. For example, the list below indicates some Cracker expressions:

“Bear Caught: Is when you get overheated and you can’t breathe. As though you had been

running from a bear and got caught. Another word for sunstroke!

Hog Caught: Is when you get overheated and get cooled off too fast and pass out.
3-48 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Slides: Another name for shoes. “Put your slides on before you go outside.”

Mash: Press. “Do ya want me to mash that button for ya?”

Croakersack: Another name for a burlap bag. Since dry goods were shipped in burlap bags,

they were put to use once empty. They were used by frog hunters to hold the frogs

(croakers) while giggin (spearing). They were also used as bedding when the bags were

stuffed with spanish moss.

Stowed up: Stiff muscles. “Gator took to the bed for three days and got stowed up.”

Slappin: The sound of the rain hitting the roof or windows of a house.

Youngin’s: Another name for children.

Learnin’: Another name for education or as it was pronounced: ed-u-ma-cation “That boy

never did have no learnin” <http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1953/

expressions.html>.

Jokes, tales, colorful language, and oral histories are part of the traditions of Cracker verbal

expression and these traditions are believed to “ . . . impart a sense of belonging, a sense of place

to families who pioneered in a wilderness area and continue to feel a link with the land that

survives development and seasonal tourist invasions” (Bucuvalas, Bulger and Kennedy 1994:63).

Cow Tending, Fishing, and Moonshining

Crackers were said to be reluctant agriculturalists, but they are known to be among the first and

most successful cattle ranchers in Florida. As with other aspects of their lifestyle, Cracker

ranching styles are said to be related to Celtic cow-tending practices (McWhiney 1988:51-79).

This style is said to favor open range grazing, the use of dogs and whips to control and help herd

the animals, and burning off the land to increase tender grasses that cows are said to prefer for

grazing (Bucuvalas, Bulger and Kennedy 1994:39-43). In Florida, the Crackers added horses to

herd cattle and brands to keep track of their roaming herds. Their horses became a recognized

breed, the Cracker horse, that was well adapted to the grazing and herding conditions in Florida.

Cracker preferences for open-range cattle grazing is also said to have resulted in its persistence

until 1949, whereas in other parts of the United States open-range grazing died in the late 1920s.

Ranching in the Cracker tradition continues to be an important part of south Florida lifestyles,

but as with many other aspects of Florida culture, there is also a thriving tourist business that

promotes Cracker cowmen, trail rides, and the swamp cowboy experience. 

Crackers were also adept fishermen who participated in commercial as well as subsistence

fishing. They were known for their preferences for catfish and mullet in their diet, but they were

also known to consume take from their commercial catches including blue fish, snook, redfish,

and snapper. Alligator and frog legs were also special treats associated with Cracker practices

of “frogging” and using marshmallows and dogs as bait to attract “gators.” In addition to the

exotic practices of frogging and “gator” hunting, Crackers are said to have practiced “dry stop
National Park Service 3-49

fishing” in the south Florida swamps and the Everglades, usually done at Spring high tides:

At high tide the fish go into the grass and even back into the mangrove swamp. I put the

nets out and put stakes on them like a big fence. When the tide goes out it will be

completely dry in an hour and you will get everything that goes back in the mangroves.

While the tide is out I pick up all the loose fish that are on the mud and clean the fish out

of the nets. Then the tide comes back in I pull the net back in the boat. I have caught

many fish this way (Storter 2000:92). 

The considerable angling and outdoor skills of Crackers also made them desirable as guides for

fishing and hunting and many became well known for their skills and abilities for finding and

landing fish. But, as guides, commercial anglers, or subsistence fishermen, Crackers had unique

beliefs about being successful in their pursuits. As with their Celtic counterparts, Cracker fishermen were prone to various superstitions or as their Irish counterparts would say, Piseoga, that

prescribed or proscribed certain actions that would either protect them from harm or promote

successful fishing. For example, “ . . . it is bad luck to leave dock on a Friday, say ‘alligator’ or

‘banana’ on board, have a woman on board, whistle on board, turn the hatch upside down, or

bring a black suitcase on board” (Bucuvalas, Bulger, and Kennedy 1994:49). These types of

beliefs were common and in fact no doubt remain a part of Cracker culture in south Florida.

Cracker fishermen and ranchers were known for their poaching and they evaluated it as part of

a lifestyle rather than as a violation of law. However, in addition to often being on the wrong

side of the law while poaching, they also were known as prolific “moonshiners” or producers

of illicit alcohol. Again, this is a tradition that is fundamental to Celtic ways of life, with only the

ingredients varying. For the Irish, poteen was and still is a variety of Celtic moonshine made

from potatoes, while their Cracker cousins used corn, sugar, or whatever else was at hand.

Poaching, moonshining, and, to a lesser extent, smuggling are the ornery expressions of Cracker

culture for some, while for others the culture exemplified a living-off-the-land lifestyle that

exemplified the self-sufficiency that Crackers so valued.

Celebrations

In the past, Cracker celebrations and other elements of expressive culture revolved around

family and religion. Family life cycle events such as births, deaths, birthdays, and religious

holidays were among the most important celebrations in their daily lives. This focus on family

and religion may not necessarily represent modern Cracker culture since today celebrations and

festivals that are “Cracker” tend to celebrate story-telling and the outdoor and skills of Crackers

of days past. Events such as Cracker Heritage Days in various communities and storytelling

contests and celebrations, as well as events such as Pioneer Days and Cracker County Days,

exemplify more of a celebration of things past than an expression of present-day beliefs, values,

and practices. 

3.6.3 Sociocultural Issues

Crackers in some respect represent non-ethnic native Florida populations. Whether they are

old family or self-identified “rednecks” or “Crackers,” a significant issue for these populations
3-50 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

is the increasingly multicultural social environment of south Florida. Non-ethnic culture still

flourishes, but it is arguable whether it is in fact the dominant culture in this part of Florida. In

this environment, Florida natives who may have no Cracker heritage may look at Cracker

festivals and elements of Cracker practices and beliefs as an expression of “traditional Florida”

culture.
National Park Service 4-1

4.0 EXISTING LITERATURE: USES OF THE PARK 

BISC, as well as other entities, have sponsored research regarding visitor usage, commercial and

recreational fishing, and other topics that offer insights about the uses of BISC by residents of

surrounding communities and out-of-area tourists and visitors. This section summarizes some

of the findings from this literature as a means to illustrate the range of topics and issues

concerning uses of BISC resources.

4.1 Overview

BISC is a unique marine managed area, both in terms of its physical setting and its users. Located

near the city of Homestead and adjacent to Miami’s urban and suburban communities, BISC

abuts a number of developmental and agricultural interests (Figure 13). These include the former

Homestead Air Force Base (AFB), Florida Power and Light’s Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant,

various agricultural areas, and other commercial and residential developments. Compounded

with these interests are other proposed activities and developments that do or may affect the

park’s resources and interests, particularly the fight over Stiltsville, the future of the Miami Circle,

and proposed development on the realigned Homestead AFB.

BISC also hosts a variety of recreational activities such as fishing and boating, and its users have

access to a variety of entrance points due to the park’s setting. Visitors can enter the park via land

at its main entrance at Convoy Point near Homestead and at Black Point and Bayfront Park

Marinas, which abut the park; however, almost all points of entry are on the water. Accordingly,

a majority of the uses associated with the park take place in the coastal and marine environment.

There are two primary types of resources that BISC offers its users: natural resources and cultural

resources. Natural resources refer to the coastal and marina flora and fauna, the coastal and

benthic formations, and the general physical conditions of the park and its environs. Cultural

resources refer to both submerged and land-based cultural resources, such as artifacts,

constructions, and structures, including prehistoric, colonial, and more recent items. 

This assessment study began with an extensive literature survey to identify the uses of BISC, and

the preliminary research conducted focused on the history of the uses, the past and present

participants, and current use standards and practices. No attempt was made to circumscribe uses

to the traditional definition of active participation in resource extraction or appreciation; instead,

we expanded the definition to identify all stakeholders and uses that may exploit, appreciate, or

compete for BISC resources. This study determined that the park’s natural resources are

primarily utilized by commercial and recreational fishing interests, divers, boaters and cruisers,

and land-based visitors/tourists. Indirect natural resource uses that may conflict or compete with

BISC include aviation uses at the former Homestead AFB facility, Turkey Point Nuclear Power

Plant, and agricultural interests. Users of the park’s cultural resources are more difficult to

define; therefore, the park’s major cultural resources will be described and then the major uses

of those resources will be described. These resources include Stiltsville, Tequesta sites on the

park’s islands (and links to the Miami Circle outside the Park), historical structures on the park’s

islands, and BISC’s submerged cultural resources or shipwrecks. 

A survey of these activities and resources follows, and it provides a brief yet firm characterization

of the socioeconomic uses and user groups of BISC.
4-2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

FISHERIES

There are two major kinds of fisheries present in BISC: commercial fisheries and recreational

angling. Fisheries have enjoyed a rich history within the region and continue to flourish today.

However, the user groups within the fisheries have changed significantly, particularly in certain

segments of the commercial fishing industry. To understand each fishery and its users, it is best

to discuss each fishery and its subgroups separately. 

COMMERCIAL FISHING

BISC has allowed commercial fishing within its boundaries since its inception as a National

Monument in 1968. Ault et al. (1997) identify the major species that commercial harvesters

target in the park as spiny lobster, blue crab, stone crab, penaeid shrimp, and finfish. The

preferred gear types for the invertebrates are wood slate-traps for lobster and stone crab, wire

traps for blue crab, and nets for shrimp. Ballyhoo, primarily a baitfish species, is also caught

using nets, and snapper-grouper are caught mostly by hook-and-line angling, although there

is significant (recreational) spearfishing of these species as well. While sharing some common

species, the main distinction between bait shrimp and food shrimp is the physical size of the

individual shrimp, with food shrimp considerably larger than bait shrimp.

Commercial landings data in Florida are reported using a trip ticket system. Fishermen fill out

trip tickets, itemizing catch, trips, and area fished. The larger reporting area for Biscayne Bay

is Miami-Dade County itself; however, there is a subset for the bay, which includes Biscayne

Bay, Barnes Sound, and Card Sound. The catch totals for the entire Miami-Dade County region

have fluctuated between 1.3 and 2.2 million pounds for the period between 1990-2001 (FMRI

2002). Overall, there has been a net loss of 299 commercial fishing licenses in the industry from

1994-1998. The number of commercially registered vessels has decreased in the County as well,

from 1,353 vessels in 1989-1990 to 757 vessels in 1998-1999. Refer to the figures below for catch

totals (1990-2001).

As shown in Figure 13, the commercial landings for most major species have declined towards

the end of the 1990s. To understand the dynamics of each fishery, it is important to compare

the effort and landings by species. Figures 14 through 19 illustrate each major fishery in greater

detail for the past decade, as well as provide a general background of each species and its status

in Biscayne Bay.

Figure 13. Landings in Major Fisheries, 1990-2001
National Park Service 4-3

As depicted in Figure 14, finfish effort has averaged almost 5,000 trips from 1990 to 1996, and

catches spiked to over 1 million pounds only in 1991. The catch increased steadily from 1992

(585,023 pounds) to 1998 (812,371 pounds) before declining to just over half a million pounds

in 2001. The total trips, which may reflect additional effort as they include multiple-species

trips, have similarly declined since the 1991 peak, when there were 5,616 trips recorded. In the

most recent year, less than 3,400 trips were recorded. As the numbers of trips have increased

in the early 1990s, the catch per trip has decreased. Then, in the late 1990s, as the number of

trips decreased, the catch per trip increased for a few years before declining again. It is

interesting to note that some of the best catch per trip periods have been recorded during the

years when fishing effort has been at its lowest (1998 and 1999). 

Amendment three of the Florida Constitution, known as the net ban, was implemented in July

1995 and made unlawful the use of entangling nets. As the net ban was intended to reduce

pressure on several key species of finfish, a decline in overall landings was expected, however

long term benefits resulting from the net ban will be realized through continued improvement

to finfish stocks (Adams et al 2000).

Figure 14: Finfish Catch and Effort, 1990-2001

Stone crab catches followed a pattern of alternatively increasing and decreasing catch cycles

(Figure 15). For example, landings exceeded 100,000 pounds in 1994-95 but dropped to less

than 60,000 pounds the subsequent season. Also, it appears that fishermen began taking more

trips since the 1993-94 season, but efficiency did not improve until the 1998-99 season. Effort

may have increased in 1994-95 because in that season stone crab licenses were restricted by the

Figure 15. Stone Crab Catch and Effort, 1990-2001
4-4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

number of pounds reported. By the late 1990s, however, catch continued to decline, and it

reached its lowest point in 2001, when only 11,750 pounds were landed. Initially, effort remained at or near 1,000 trips per season in the late 1990s, but it decreased considerably by 2001.

Stone crabs are landed from October 15 to May 15 (FAC 68B-13.005). Like spiny lobster, stone

crabs are caught in wood slate-traps, and this fishery is subject to a certificate program (Florida

Statute 370.13), starting in the 2000-01 season. However, unlike spiny lobsters, which are

harvested whole, it is illegal to harvest whole stone crabs; instead, only legal sized claws are

removed, and the invertebrate is released. Ault et al. (1997) report landings fluctuating between

45,000 pounds and 12,000 pounds in Biscayne Bay. Williams (1997) reported that catch per unit

effort (CPUE) has declined steadily due to the excess gear capitalization in the fishery, but it is

not known whether this is the case for Biscayne Bay. As noted by Ault et al. (2001), there is

“sparse literature” on the stone crab fishery in the bay. Data trends from the Biscayne Bay

region show less than 8,000 pounds landed in 1999, 7,800 pounds in 2000, and slightly more

than 3,000 pounds in 2001. 

The blue crab fishery appears to have increased a substantial amount of effort since the early

1990s to the present day. Trips increased from less than 100 in 1990 to over 1,500 in 1996; there

were almost 1,200 trips recorded in 2001. Also, it seems that only recently has the efficiency in

the fishery improved, as demonstrated by the increased CPUE (or trip) for the 1999 season as

compared to previous seasons; that trend has continued into 2000 and 2001. 

Figure 16: Blue Crab Catch and Effort, 1990-2001

Blue crabs have no season and can be caught year-round; the data displayed in Figure 16 show

that while landings for invertebrates in 1999 declined in Biscayne Bay during the summer, they

did not cease. This is because the summer catches reflect exclusively blue crabs. The blue crab

fishery dates back to the late 1800s in Florida, but it was not until the 1950s that the current gear

type - wire traps - began to predominate the fishery. Landings have remained low for Biscayne

Bay compared to other regions, but there has been a recent increase (according to Ault et al.

[2001]). That increase can be attributed to an increase in the total number of fishermen and

trips; consequently, CPUE has declined in the fishery. In 1999, almost 120,000 pounds of blue

crab were landed in Biscayne Bay and almost 150,000 in Miami-Dade County (from a low of

82,000 pounds in 1998). In 2000, almost 190,000 pounds were landed in Biscayne Bay (more

than the 140,000 pounds landed in Miami-Dade County), and the landings dropped to 105,000

pounds in 2001. 
National Park Service 4-5

Ault et al. (1997) found that blue crabs are mostly targeted in the southern parts of the bay and

park, and that the traps are located almost exclusively on seagrasses in the southwestern

shoreline between Black Point Marina and Turkey Point Power Plant. 

Spiny lobster landings in the Miami-Dade County region have declined steadily since peaking

in the 1993-94 season. Effort too has declined with catch, and 2001-02 was the lowest year for

lobster catch during the preceding decade, when only 210,000 pounds were landed (compared

to 1993-94, when almost 700,000 pounds were landed). 

Figure 17: Lobster Catch and Effort, 1990-2001

Spiny lobster is landed from the first week of August to the last week in March, although the

recreational season commences a week prior to the commercial season (FAC 68B 24.005). The

predominant gear type in the fishery is the aforementioned wood slate-trap, and the number

of traps is strictly controlled under a market-based certificate program (Shivlani and Milon

2000). The only other way that fishermen can commercially harvest spiny lobster is by diving

for the species. Spiny lobster fishing is allowed in a majority of the Biscayne Bay. However,

under FAC 68B-11, no lobster fishing is allowed in the Biscayne Bay-Card Sound Spiny Lobster

Sanctuary. As noted above, spiny lobster is not a very important commercial species in the bay,

as over 90 percent of the annual catch is landed in the Florida Keys. However, it does represent

a vestige of the region’s past history, and it remains important for the few fishermen who trap

in the lower parts of the bay, including Card Sound and Barnes Sound. In the 2000-01 and

2001-02 seasons, fishers trapping in Biscayne Bay landed 3,500 pounds and 4,000 pounds,

respectively. 

Spiny lobster are targeted in a variety of habitats, but traps are usually set on seagrasses or hard

bottoms (near coral and patch reefs). Ault et al. (1997) found that over half of the traps they

observed in the park were located on seagrass, a third on patch reefs, and 14 percent on bare

substrate. The researchers also noted that the traps are located either close to shore (328 feet)

or out on the eastern side of the keys in the park. 

Bait shrimp catches have increased dramatically in the 1990s, from 50,000 pounds in 1990 to

almost 700,000 pounds in 2000. The effort has increased in conjunction with the catch, and it

appears that the efficiency has increased during that time as well. However, 2001 was a

mediocre year, as catches only reached 360,000 pounds (or the 1993/94 levels), even though

effort was at 5,500 trips (2,500 trips above the 1993 season). In fact, CPUE was at its lowest
4-6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

point in the past decade. Whether this represents an overfishing trend or interannual

fluctuation remains to be determined. 

Figure 18: Bait Shrimp Catch and Effort, 1990-2001

Bait shrimping, an activity that has occurred in the bay since the early 1950s (Seidenfeld 1999),

utilizes a trawl that is towed behind a vessel. Over time, the trawl has been modified into the socalled rollerframe (which essentially is a roller trawl that moves over seagrass). Although the

system has been endorsed by the State of Florida, there have been studies implicating

rollerframes for impacts to sponges and hard and soft corals (Ault et al. 1997; Tilmant 1979).

While the number of vessels in the fishery increased since its inception, reaching a maximum

of 46 boats in 1986, that total has decreased to a dozen or more boats currently. Unlike in the

crab and lobster fisheries, effort in the bait shrimp fishery generally emanates from Dinner Key

and Black Point Marinas (from the central bay). The fishing vessels, as noted above, work year

round and can sweep the shallow (4 to 6 feet) bay bottom up to four times per year (Ault et al.

1997). 

The shrimp fishery, mainly food shrimp, has dramatically increased in the 1990s, much to the

expense of the catch/effort ratio. It appears that the number of trips has greatly outpaced catch

in most years, and the ratio has declined significantly towards the end of the 1990s, suggesting

Figure 19: Shrimp Catch and Effort, 1990-2001

a large but less efficient fishery. From the late 1990s through 2001, catch has decreased steeply.

In 2001, even though trips increased (526 total trips) from the previous year (443 total trips in

2000), catch still dropped from 220,000 pounds in 2000 to 90,000 pounds in 2001.
National Park Service 4-7

Food shrimping is conducted primarily by wingnetters, so-called due to the appearance of their

fishing vessels that skim nets on either side. The technique is relatively new (having been

developed two decades ago), and it only utilizes the upper level of the water. Therefore,

wingnetters cannot and do not net in water shallower than 4 to 6 feet, effectively segregating

them from grounds used by bait shrimpers (personal communication, Regina Lopez, Miami

Wingnetters Association). Seidenfeld (1999) reports that wingnetters fish from the Venetian

Causeway in the upper bay to the Rickenbacker Causeway in the central Miami-Dade region.

Subject to a closed season, the food shrimpers do not typically use the park; they may enter the

northern boundaries of the park in the area around Stiltsville but usually fish the mid and upper

bay (personal communication, Regina Lopez, Miami Wingnetters Association). 

Biscayne Bay Landings

Within the more specific region of Biscayne Bay, 1999-2001 landings and trips data show that

the majority of blue crab (79 percent) and almost all of the bait shrimp is taken from the

Biscayne Bay region, with the other species less important in the context of countywide catches

(FMRI 2002). The trips reflect that trend as well. The figures below show the monthly

breakdown in commercial catch within Biscayne Bay for the last three years. Note that the

trends do not necessarily reflect catch totals on a perennial basis.

As shown in the Figures 20 through 22, finfish catch was fairly stable in Biscayne Bay in 1999,

although landings were higher during the winter months. Peak landings occurred in January,

when almost 25,000 pounds were landed. Finfish catch was minimal in 2000 and 2001, with

peak landings occurring during the fall and winter months. Invertebrates show a more marked,

seasonal trend, and this may be due to regulatory, as well as abundance, reasons. In 1999,

landings were lowest during the closed season; however, in 2001, when both stone crab and

spiny lobster fisheries were very low, blue crab landings sustained catch totals throughout the

year, including during the closed seasons for other invertebrates. The shrimp fishery also 

Figure 20: Catch by Month in 1999

exhibited a seasonal peak, in the winter months between January and April. Although the 1999

season showed a spike in landings during those months, catch was flat in 2000, before

rebounding slightly in 2001. The season is closed between May 15 and October 15, and thus

there were no landings during that period (FAC 68B-31.0135). Finally, bait shrimping–which
4-8 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

is open year round–showed decreasing landings from the winter to summer months, and the

peak catches were in the winter and spring months (over 150,000 pounds in January 2000). The

bait shrimp fishery, in all three seasons shown above for Biscayne Bay, as well as for the

reporting period of 1994-98, is the most important fishery in the region as determined by catch

and effort. Accordingly, as part of the BISC’s internal annual fisheries reports (Lockwood and

Perry 1997, 1998) the park noted that the most important commercial fishery within its

boundaries and in the bay is the bait shrimp fishery. 

Figure 21: Catch by Month in 2000

Figure 22: Catch by Month in 2001 (through November)

Sponging

Sponging was allowed in BISC until 1991, when the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission

(MFC) closed the fishery (FAC 68B-28.004). Traditionally, sponging was an artisanal activity

in the bay until a 1980s sponge die-off in the Mediterranean inflated world prices and prompted

increased effort and participation in the Florida fishery. Under these circumstances, BISC

requested that the MFC close the fishery (Diresta, Lockwood, and Curry 1995). 

Sponging is still allowed in other parts of Florida, but there are regulations on gear, size, and

areas. Spongers may not dive for sponges in most State waters, and they can only use

standardized gear and fish a minimum size (Florida Statutes 370.17). In the Biscayne Bay area,
National Park Service 4-9

spongers only use Barnes Sound and Card Sound, avoiding the central and upper bay (personal

communication, José Ordono). 

A 1995 study on the sponge population within the park determined that the commercial

sponges harvested previously by fishermen have low growth rates. The study also found that

commercially mature sponges comprise a small percentage of the complete population but they

contribute most heavily to the reproductive success. The study determined that mortality rates

under human harvest conditions have severe impacts, and recommended that the park remain

closed to commercial sponging (Diresta, Lockwood, and Curry, 1995).

Since the 1991 closure, a few spongers have illegally harvested sponges in BISC, and these users

have been banned from the park for all activities. However, these remain isolated incidents, and

the use is not permitted. There is sponging allowed in the Biscayne Bay region that is not part

of the park itself. In 2000, 119,197 pieces were collected, but that total decreased to less than

half in 2001, when only 54,826 pieces were collected (FMRI 2002). 

RECREATIONAL FISHING

Recreational fishing is among the most popular activities undertaken in BISC. Providing a

variety of habitats, the park hosts thousands of recreational fishing vessels annually; the 1997

total was estimated at less than 33,000 fishing vessels. As part of a boat survey, BISC determined

the characteristics of the recreational fishery. The study found that most fishermen tend to be

recreational anglers, although almost a fifth engage in spearfishing, and almost 30 percent go

farther offshore (east of the park’s islands). The areas that most fishermen use are along the reef

tract (hard bottom substrate) and the area inside the bay near Adams Key (mixed substrate).

The composition of catch includes mostly common reef species, such as snappers, grunts, and

lobster. An identical study, performed a year earlier, found similar statistics; however,

spearfishing use (8 percent) was considerably lower than in 1997. 

Another study, which examined data from 1976 to 1991, determined the average characteristics

of recreational anglers (Harper, Bohnsack, and Lockwood, 2000). However, it should be noted

that the data used in the study predates Hurricane Andrew, which had dramatic and chronic

effects on recreational activities and patterns in the region (personal communication, Maria

Villanueva). In that study, the researchers found that recreational trips yield approximately 9

fish/shellfish, and angler means were approximately half that amount. Most of the users were

skilled anglers, but almost 20 percent were food fishermen, and approximately 10 percent were

lobster divers and spearfishers. Areas used within the park correlate well with fishing activities;

for example, spearfishing occurs mostly east of the islands on the south side of the park. Also,

there are definite “hot-spots” where fishermen focus their efforts in BISC, including the

northeastern corner, south of the park, and the southern portion of the park.

A 2001 study by Ault et al. (1997) assessed the fisheries resources and habitats in BISC,

concluding that the park plays an important role as a primary nursery area for many important

commercial and recreational species, but that a majority of the region’s fisheries are overfished,

and that the effort has greatly increased in the past four decades. The study found that the

average size of fish within BISC was very close to the minimum harvest size, and not the natural,
4-10 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

unfished population size. The study notes that 77 percent of the commercially important

species complexes (groupers, snappers, and other reef fish) are overfished, and the current rates

of exploitation for particular species range from 3 through 10 times that which would achieve

maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The researchers also note the existence of “serial

overfishing,” where less desirable species are being targeted now that the previously valuable

ones have been overfished. Much of this overfishing is blamed on the increase in the fishing

effort in the region, which the study notes has increased by 444 percent in the period between

1964 and 1998. Added to this increase has been a significant improvement in fishing

technology, assisting fishers to locate and harvest fish. The researchers call for a broader,

integrated strategy of monitoring, assessment, and modeling to manage fisheries in the park

more effectively, focusing on fishery resources that have been previously overlooked, and to

include in the effects of other factors (such as water quality) on fishery abundance. 

A visitor survey conducted by the University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit in 2001

(Simmons and Littlejohn 2002) obtained resource use and management perception responses

from 308 visitors to the park. Although the most frequent activities undertaken are

nonconsumptive (such as nature viewing and walking), 31 percent of the visitors do participate

in recreational fishing. Moreover, a large majority of the respondents, or 72 percent, view

recreational fishing as an appropriate activity in the park (only 13 percent disagree). 

BOATING

Pleasure boating, or cruising, remains among the most popular water-based activity in south

Florida and in BISC. Although it is often and correctly associated with other activities–namely

diving and fishing–it is nevertheless important to examine boating as an overall activity in the

park and its environs. 

The number of registered vessels has increased steadily in south Florida over the 1990s,

reaching to a total of 50,163 registered vessels in Miami-Dade County in 1997 (Boating Research

Council 2000). Of this total, almost 48,000 vessels are pleasure craft, and over 50 percent of

these are between 16 to 26 feet in length. Commercial vessels, which include fishing boats,

comprise 1,702 of the total, and a majority of these vessels are also in the 16- to 26-foot range.

Finally, a majority of the vessels (over 47,000) use a combination of inboard and/outboard

motors; less than 1,000 vessels are registered as sailboats. 

Mostly local boats (from Miami-Dade County) use BISC, as suggested by studies conducted at

the park (Lockwood and Perry 1997, 1998). In 1997, an estimated 50,000 vessels used the park

for a variety of activities (including fishing, diving, and passage); of that total, almost 30,000

boats participated in fishing activities, and 90 percent of those users were from Miami-Dade

County. 

A 1991 study conducted to determine boat use patterns in Miami-Dade County determined that

most vessels are launched on boat ramps closest to their proposed destination, although ramp

and marina preference is more related to proximity than eventual site preference (BRC 1991).

Accordingly, greater than half of the boaters surveyed in the study disclosed that they used the

ramp close to their home, and over 85 percent of the respondents who used ramps in southern
National Park Service 4-11

Miami-Dade County went to destinations south of Cape Florida. Using a marine traffic

network model, the study determined areas of highest use from points of departure. The model

determined that boating into BISC is highest from three southern marinas: Matheson

Hammock, Black Point, and Bayfront Park. Boaters departing from more central and northern

ramps/marinas do not tend to visit the park. Although these patterns may have changed since

1991 due to more vessels and due to the effects of Hurricane Andrew, data from McClellan

(1996) suggest otherwise. That study, which used overflights comparing the number of boat

trailers in the southern marinas and the number of boats in the park, determined that it might

be possible to estimate the number of boats using the park by counting the boat trailers. 

Vessel use, like associated activities such as fishing and diving, does affect BISC’s natural and

cultural resources. Vessels make these otherwise inaccessible areas open to use, although in

some cases this also means more vulnerable to damage. The park estimates that the 700

recorded groundings since 1995 represent only between 10 to 20 percent of the actual number

of grounded vessels (BISC 2000a). During a recent study, the greatest extent of diving and boat

damage in the park was found in Bache Shoal, which is the closest reef site with mooring buoys

to the mainland (Lutz 1998). The study concluded that there should be, among other measures,

greater boating education to reduce such impacts. Another study, conducted using aerial survey

analysis, determined that 11,220 acres of the 145,650 acres of seagrasses in Miami-Dade County

are scarred; this represents 7.7 percent of the total seagrasses, and 5.8 percent are severely

scarred (Sargent et al. 1995). Areas that were severely scarred in BISC include the parts of the

bay immediately west of Boca Chita Key, Sands Cut, Caesar Creek, and Midnight Pass in the

southern boundary. With the exception of the first site, all other severe scarring is located

within high traffic sites, confirming the effects of vessel damage.

The effects of larger vessel abuse were most prevalently observed with the grounding of the

vessel M/T Igloo Moon in November 1996 on the park’s coral reefs (BISC 2000a). Damaging

almost 500 square meters of reef resources, the vessel injured both the coral reef and other

organisms in the area. In December 2000, under the Park System Resources Protection Act, the

National Park Service settled for $1 million (the largest settlement ever under the act). These

funds shall be used for restoration and remediation in the affected area, as well as in other park

areas. 

Although not directly related to resource damage but to maintain the “environmental integrity

of park areas,” the use of personal watercraft (PWC) has been prohibited in BISC effective April

20, 2000 (36 CFR 1, 3, 13). Based on potential resource impacts, user conflicts, and safety

concerns, BISC and 12 other areas have been closed to all PWC use. They shall remain closed

to such activities until it is determined, based on a variety of park-specific characteristics and

objectives, that such use is again appropriate. 

Related to boating activity, diving is an important recreational activity in and around BISC.

Apart from the licensed concessionaire, there are the aforementioned private vessels that cruise

to and enjoy the coral reefs and other hardbottom habitats of the park and surrounding areas.

In a recent study completed by Johns et al. (2001), it was found that there were 3.25 million

person-days spent snorkeling and diving in natural and artificial reefs in Miami-Dade County

from June 2000 – May 2001 (total use was 9.17 million person-days, including activities such as
4-12 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

fishing and glass-bottom boating). The visitors were willing to pay $47 million to protect these

resources from water quality degradation, physical impacts, and overuse. Finally, over 60

percent were in favor of no-take zones in Miami-Dade County, and the average percentage of

coral reefs no-take area preferred was 30 percent. While this study did not target BISC users,

the results demonstrate user behavior in the greater Biscayne Bay area, and the views may be

indicative of users within the park. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

BISC contains a variety of cultural resources, ranging from ancient pre-Columbian sites of the

ancestors of the Tequesta Indians, colonial and post-colonial submerged resources, and

historical buildings from the 1900s. The park identifies, manages, and maintains over 100

known archeological sites and 10 historical structures (Adams et al. 1998). 

Tequesta sites have been identified in BISC and are located on Elliott Key, Sands Key, Soldier

Key, and Totten Key. Nearby, but outside the park, is the recently discovered Miami Circle.

This latter resource is of distinct regional importance as it may have been a strong centerperiphery tie to the less dramatic but important sites within the park. The Miami Circle, located

on the mainland near the mouth of the Miami River, is under Miami-Dade County control and

was purchased using State and County funds. The circle was discovered during a routine

archeological excavation in September 1998 when Miami-Dade County archeologists

discovered unusual features cut into the ground of a new construction site (Miami-Dade Parks

2000). The resulting excavation yielded a 38-foot-diameter circle cut into the bedrock, as well

as evidence of animal offerings and other artifacts. It is believed that the circle may have served

as a temple or council house. The circle remains in excellent condition and is believed to be

more than 2,000 years old; BISC and archeologists suspect that the Tequesta may have traveled

between the islands and the Miami Circle, thus linking the two areas as archeological satellites.

The future of the Miami Circle was not secure until the State of Florida provided the County

with $15 million for the $26.7 million purchase, and the County secured other funding and

loans. While the circle does not belong to the park, there was some discussion in 1999 that it

be joined with BISC to secure federal funding; however, the proposal, led by Senator Bob

Graham, failed without any support in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

In early 2001, the State of Florida created a group that will oversee the long-term planning and

management of the Miami Circle site. The Miami Circle Planning Group – comprised of

community leaders, historians, archeologists, and preservationists – advises officials on site

interpretation and public visitation planning issues. Among its members is the BISC

superintendent (Florida Department of State 2001). At its inaugural meeting in August 2001,

the group heard public comments, discussed the historical significance of the site, and

considered current issues, including plans for interpretation, a draft interim management plan,

and temporary facilities. Most recently, Senator Graham again called for the preservation of

the Miami Circle as part of Biscayne National Park. He announced a U.S. Department of the

Interior plan to conduct a feasibility study to incorporate the site as part of the NPS. The

inclusion will consider future funding and would take 18 months to complete, once the

legislation is approved (Thomas 2002). In addition to its intrinsic cultural resource value, the

Miami Circle could also provide an urban gateway to BISC. In several ways, such a presence
National Park Service 4-13

could provide an interpretive bridge for pre-Columbian and contemporary use patterns

between the areas that are now urban Miami and BISC.

In 1998, the park updated its inventory of submerged cultural resources to at least 83 sites, with

an estimated 30 to 40 sites that were still being evaluated (Adams et al. 1998). These sites range

from historic shipwrecks to other submerged cultural artifacts. There are also other historical

sites on the park’s keys, including more recent structures. 

Finally, Stiltsville is a set of seven remaining structures within the northwestern boundary of

BISC; in fact, that northern boundary was expanded in 1980 to include the sandbar on which

the Stiltsville buildings sit (Lauredo 1998). Stiltsville’s origins lie with a barge that ran aground

in the 1920s just south of Key Biscayne, which was then used as a bait shop and restaurant.

Various structures were erected alongside the renovated barge, and slowly a community of sorts

developed. While privately constructed, the State of Florida retained (submerged) land rights,

and eventually lease agreements were reached between structure occupants and the state. The

structures grew in size and in number and peaked in 1965 at 24 houses; thereafter began the

decline, with the State of Florida prohibiting all new construction and Hurricane Betsy

destroying 7 houses that same year. When the National Park Service took possession of the area

including Stiltsville, the terms of the existing leases, including their expiration dates, remained

in effect. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew destroyed all but 7 structures. The final leases on

Stiltsville expired in July 1999, but standstill agreements extended the date to December 31,

2000. 

As part of the decision making process, a citizens’ advisory committee was formed to determine

possible alternate public uses for the structures. The committee met three times in 2001-02 to

consider the eventual disposition of the Stiltsville structures, and the standstill agreements were

extended to April 2002 (later extended to June 2002). Finally, following consensus among the

various stakeholders in early May 2002, followed by a National Park Service Advisory Board

public meeting on May 30, the structures’ fate was decided (BISC 2002). Under the agreement,

previous leaseholders will enjoy continued access to the sites under a special-use permit until

at least December 31, 2002, while awaiting the completion of an amendment to the park’s

General Management Plan (GMP). This amendment will be subject to public review, and its

preferred alternative shall be the creation of a non-profit organization that will determine the

management options for the structures. The objectives of this non-profit organization shall

include increased public access and a stabilization program for the structures. Funding for the

stabilization project will come from a combination of public, private, and government sources.

Stiltsville represents a distinct management challenge for BISC. While the land is not privately

held, Stiltsville represents a private/public use tension seen in “in holdings” issues in a number

of other national parks. A limited grandfathered use, the long-range condition of the area will

be the absence of any structures, with ultimate removal triggered by attrition due to natural

forces. In the interim, however, Stiltsville represents a set of highly valued resources, the use

of which remains the subject of much contention.
4-14 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment
National Park Service 5-1

5.0 AN ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW OF USERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES 

Ethnographic methods were used to develop information about user groups, activities, and

management issues and concerns. These methods include participant observation within the

park and attendance at public meetings. Also, individuals were interviewed to elicit information

about four major topics:

• the nature of user activities, 

• the meanings of park resources,

• the connection between activities and user groups and cultural groups in surrounding

communities; and,

• management issues and concerns among park users in 2001 and 2002.

Fieldwork was conducted in two periods of approximately one week each. Individuals were

selected for interviews from a listing of user groups, interested parties, and persons

knowledgeable about the park and its resources. Additionally, park personnel were interviewed

concerning their knowledge about user groups and activities. Some limited interviews were

conducted with visitors to the park. Field notes were taken during these interviews but no

electronic recordings were made.

Characterizing perception of the park from a limited number of contacts is hazardous, but a

theme emerges from field data that suggests BISC is something of an unknown park, a place

people pass through or use, but they may not necessarily know they are in a “National Park.”

In part, this is because the most usual access to the park is via private boats that depart from the

various county marinas or private docks throughout Miami-Dade County and adjacent area

(Figure 23). As one person suggested:

There’s probably no other urban area that has so much park next to it, but it is

a park that you almost have to have a boat to get to, that is one of the great things

about it. But when you leave your dock you are not thinking ‘I am going to the

park’ because sometimes you are in it and sometimes you are not. There is only

one concessionaire and that is probably why the park is not used all that much.

You might not say that if you go out there on the weekends, lots of boaters, but

the area is close, and it is like being in the Keys without all the hype of the Keys

and all the people too! Nothing is pristine down here, maybe parts of the

Everglades are as close to pristine as you get, but the park (BISC) is a place I like

to take my kids. . . .

Another person observed that BISC’s identity also may get confused with the nearby marine

sanctuary, and boaters from County marinas often may not know the exact location of park

boundaries, even if they are aware of BISC’s existence. Marine sanctuaries and parks adjacent

to BISC are shown in Figure 24. With Everglades National Park also nearby, BISC has a less

glamorous image, although for some its lower visibility is part of its attraction.

Unless visitors have access to boats, BISC has a relatively narrow “front door” through the

Visitor’s Center located near Homestead, Florida. Those traveling along Highway 1 can easily
S#

S# S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

%[

%[

%[

%[

%[

%[

Hialeah

Opa-locka

Homestead

Sweetwater

North Miami

Miami Beach

South Miami

Coral Gables

Miami Springs

North Miami Beach

/(1

/(1

/(41

State Hwy 821

State Hwy 874

State Hwy 836

State Hwy 826 Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Florida City

Atlantic

Ocean

Key

Biscayne

MIAMI

Biscayne National Park

Haulover Marina

Pelican Harbor

Marina

Crandon Park

Marina

Black

Point

Marina

Homestead

Bayfront

Marina

Matheson

Hammock

Marina

BNP Headquarters

and Visitor Center

ÊÚ

5 0 5 Miles Figure 23

Miami-Dade County Marinas

Near Biscayne National Park

00034 Biscayne/GIS/marinas.apr 12/22/00

5-2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic and Assessment

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

35000 0 35000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 35,000' (1:420,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

Roads

Marina

National Park

Highway

#S Cities

Biscayne National Park

LEGEND

%[
S#

S# Coral Gables

StateHwy821

StateHwy874

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Atlantic

Ocean

Key

Biscayne

Biscayne National Park

Card Sound

FloridaKeysNationalMarineSanctuary

JohnPennekamp

CoralReefStatePark

KeyLargo

NationalMarine

Sanctuary

Elliot

Key

Sands

Key

Old Rhodes

Key

BNP Headquarters

ÊÚ and Visitor Center

Figure 24

Marine Sanctuaries and Parks

Adjacent to Biscayne National Park

00034 Biscayne/GIS/lobster sanctuary.apr 12/22/00

 National Park Service 5-3

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

21000 0 21000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 21,000' (1:252,000)

Roads

Lobster Sanctuary

National Park

Highway

#S Cities

Biscayne National Park

LEGEND

4 0 4 Miles
1.0 Purpose and Need

5-4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X PEthnographic hotographs13 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Page 3

Figure 25

Highway One Roadsigns for Biscayne National Park
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 5-5

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs (DBrady) 5/5/03

Figure 26

Convoy Point Visitor Center Grounds

View from the upper deck of the Convoy Point Visitor Center.

Bayside picnic area adjacent to the Visitor Center.
5-6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Convoy Point Entrance Sign

find signs that point to both BISC and Everglades National Park (Figure 25), with the road to

BISC winding through agricultural fields and eventually forking, with one branch leading to

 BISC and the other to Homestead Bayfront Park and Marina, a county pay facility. A short distance down the BISC fork a sign greets visitors. Passing through the gate a short drive leads to

a well-appointed Visitor’s Center. Ample parking and well-manicured green lawns are near the

main building that faces BISC’s harbor and beyond to the bay itself. On clear days the Miami

skyline is clearly visible from the upper floor of the two-story building (Figure 26). The upper

floor also has a gift shop and other concessionaire facilities, as well as an interpretative center

with displays and information about BISC’s natural resources and history. The downstairs

portion of the building has some classrooms and other facilities as well as public restrooms.

On weekends when “Miami comes to Biscayne,” the picnic spaces in the immediate vicinity of

the Visitor’s Center fill with families and couples who bring coolers, volleyball nets, footballs,

and other recreational items to enjoy their weekends. These families are from nearby

Homestead and Florida City and more distant areas. There is a perception that the picnic areas

are used primarily by Hispanics without attention to describing their ethnicity. Short-term

exploratory ethnographic field observations suggest that a good proportion of these weekend

picnickers are Hispanic, mostly families with children. Park staff suggest that despite efforts

to invite these visitors into the interpretative center, they prefer to enjoy the picnic areas and

not venture upstairs to participate in the park’s educational efforts. Park staff also note that

they continue outreach efforts to include these and other casual visitors of these facilities.

Casual tourists, bicyclists, sailboarders, and fishermen are also common weekend visitors.

Tourists in family and other small groups walk the sidewalks that are on the perimeter of the
National Park Service 5-7

picnic grounds and then often venture onto the jetty that extends into the bay. Others sit at the

picnic tables, benches, or on the sea wall and enjoy a spectacular view of the Miami skyline or

simply stare out at the greenish-blue colors of the bay. These types of tourists are more

frequent participants in the interpretative programs offered by the park. They may be Anglos,

French Canadians, or other “snowbirds” who take advantage of the views offered by the park.

Bicyclists comprise a group of visitors that might be termed “incidental recreationalists”

because they use BISC as a destination and appreciate the availability of its restrooms. The park

is at the end of an easy bicycle ride over mostly lightly traveled roads, making this a desirable

ride for weekend bikers. Sailboarders prize the small bay to the north of the Visitor’s Center

as a prime location for their activity. BISC is a preferred spot because it is not as frequently

visited as other desirable sailboarding locations such as Virginia Key Beach. The winds are

excellent at BISC, and park staff are appraised as helpful and friendly. Sailboarders launch from

a small beach near the Visitor’s Center parking lot and take full advantage of onshore winds that

blow across the bay. This area is relatively uncrowded except for the occasional kayaker and

the two or three small crabbing boats checking their traps marked by visible blue and white

floats. Fishermen use several areas in the immediate vicinity of the Visitor’s Center, including

the jetty. These types of visitors are discussed in more detail in other parts of this section, but

here it is important to note that fishermen are among the usual group of daily and weekend

visitors to the onshore areas of BISC.

Some visitors to this principal onshore area of the park take advantage of the services offered

by the concessionaire who operates tours to Elliott and other Keys as well as snorkling and

diving trips (Figure 27). The concessionaire offers the casual visitor without a private boat at

least a limited opportunity to visit the bay and Keys as well as the land areas of the park. With

only one concessionaire, these types of trips are limited, and without a private vessel it is not

possible to visit most areas of the park.

5.1 Recreational Fishing 

Recreational fishing is among the most popular activities in the park, and recreational users fish

both from land-based canals within park boundaries and on boats in park waters. Previous

studies on fisheries have focused mainly on the fishing activities undertaken while on the water,

i.e., on vessels or using dive gear (Ault et al. 1997, 2001; Seidenfeld 1999; Harper et al. 2000).

While an excellent, extensive data set exists for recreational fishing off boats in BISC (see

Lockwood and Perry 1997, 1998; Harper et al. 2000), there is little information on recreational

fishing from canal banks and off the shoreline in BISC. Interview and observation data were

collected to describe various types of recreational fishing within BISC. These data indicate that

recreational fishing in Biscayne Bay can be divided into three types: inshore, offshore, and

shoreline. Important inshore fisheries exist on the flats (i.e., shallow water sand and coral

bottoms) and in deeper waters around coral heads and open water. The offshore fishery occurs

outside the limits of the bay in deeper waters near the Gulf Stream. The species sought, fishing

technology, and boats for each type of fishing are different. Shoreline fishing takes place at

Convoy Point in the canals that flow into Biscayne Bay, as well as the shorelines that are

adjacent to these canals. Each of these types of sportfishing is briefly described below.
1.0 Purpose and Need

5-8 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs2 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Page 3

Figure 27

Concessionaire Boats at Convoy Point Dock (top) and

Afternoon Shoreline Fishing at a Canal Mouth Within Biscayne National Park (bottom)
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 5-9

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs3 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Figure 28

Canal Fishing Within Biscayne National Park
5-10 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

5.1.1 Shoreline Fishing

On most weekends or in the late afternoons during the week, people can be observed shoreline

fishing at places such as Mowry Canal and Convoy Point (Figures 27 and 28). Persons fishing

may consist of single individuals, a parent and their children, and family groups or mixed

groups of men and women. The characteristics and activities of these shoreline fishermen were

determined by interviews with park enforcement personnel who patrol the shoreline areas and

by interviews with fishermen at various shoreline locations within BISC. 

This work began with the identification of canals and shoreline sites used by recreational fishers

in BISC. This involved traveling to each accessible canal and shoreline site, starting with Black

Point Marina, which includes the confluence of Black Creek and Goulds Canals, Military Canal,

and Mowry Canal, and ending at Convoy Point near the Visitor’s Center and Homestead

Bayfront Park. Of the sites visited, only Black Point Marina, Mowry Canal, Convoy Point, and

Bayfront Park are directly accessible to land-based visitors. Furthermore, no land-based fishing

was observed in Bayfront Park during the weekend observation visits to identify possible

sampling sites. The absence of fishermen at Bayfront Park at these times may have been a

random occurrence, or it may be related to the park’s entrance fee and limited shoreline

opportunities for fishing. On other occasions during this work, fishermen were observed on

the shoreline at Bayfront Park. The sites chosen for the interviews were Black Point Marina,

Mowry Canal, and Convoy Point because of the weekend presence of fishermen at all of these

locations. The former two areas are canal-based, and the latter contains an extensive shoreline

conducive to fishing. 

A total of 65 interviews were completed on four consecutive Sunday afternoons in April of 2002.

Sundays were the days selected for interviews because this was the day of the week that the most

fishermen were observed at these locations during the initial observation periods to identify

possible interview sites. Interviewers approached every other person at these sites to participate

in the interviews. Twenty-two persons were interviewed at Black Point Marina, 22 at Convoy

Point, and 21 at Mowry Canal. The interviews addressed the reasons for their visit to the

particular site, their knowledge of the area, the species they target, the changes observed in the

fishery, and whether the users knew that they were fishing within BISC. Observations were also

recorded about the overall number and composition of fishers present at each site.

The results of these interviews are summarized by topic and site.

• The reason for fishing at the particular site. Over 86 percent of the 65 persons chose the

particular site where they were fishing due to its proximity. Factors such as better fishing

and crowded conditions did not play a role in site selection. In fact, the second most-stated

reason for site selection (11 percent) was due to the site’s amenities, such as picnic facilities,

views, etc. The values were similar for all three sites, suggesting that all sites are selected due

to their proximity rather than other attributes. 

• Frequency of visits. Most of those interviewed (40 percent) reported fishing every week,

followed by 28 percent that fish once a month. An equal percentage was visiting for the first

time. These frequencies are similar across sites. 
National Park Service 5-11

• Fishing at other sites. Most fishers reported using other sites, including others in Biscayne

National Park. A total of 72 percent use other areas, and 24.6 and 26.2 percent use Convoy

Point and Mowry Canal, respectively. Black Point Marina is less popular as a secondary

site, as only 1.5 percent of the 65 persons indicated it as such. Only 45 percent of fishers at

Black Point Marina reported fishing elsewhere, compared to 87 percent and 86 percent, at

Convoy Point and Mowry Canal, respectively. Sixty-eight percent of Convoy Point fishers

reported using Mowry Canal, similar to the 67 percent of the Mowry Canal fishers who use

Convoy Point.

• Species targeted versus abundant species, and changes in resource availability. Four

out of five anglers (or 82 percent) target snappers, 59 percent target jacks, 11 percent target

barracuda, and 11 percent target other species (including sharks, pompano, mullet, and

others). At each site, the species targeted are similar. Anglers at each location also report

snapper is the primary target for fishing effort. Anglers also report they perceive that

snappers are the most abundant species (55 percent) followed by jacks (49 percent),

barracuda (31 percent), and others (26 percent). Generally, species abundances were

reported more frequently (for all species) at Black Point Marina than at the other two sites.

Convoy Point displayed the lowest percentages of abundances, for either targeted or

nontargeted species. A majority of fishers believe that there have been no changes in the

fish abundance; however, 40 percent did state that they do not know if there have been

changes. Interestingly, among the changes noticed, 23 percent believe that there are fewer

fish, and 8 percent believe that fish size has declined. There are no site-specific differences

concerning perceptions of change in fishing abundance, and a majority from all three sites

report no perceived changes. 

• Personal and observed gear use. Every fisher surveyed stated that they use hook and line

or pole gear. Five percent reported observing fishers using other gear, including variations

on hook and line gear (called yo-yos) and cast nets. 

• The use of fish caught. No one interviewed reported selling their catch. Eighty-nine

percent reported eating their catch if of legal size. Almost all fishers who reported eating

their catch qualified their answer by adding that they release under-sized fish. Eleven

percent reported that they release all fish. Catch-and-release fishing was more frequently

reported by fishers at Black Point Marina (23 percent) than at the other two sites (less than

5 percent). 

• Fisher numbers and site recruitment. Most of the fishermen at these sites are local

residents, with an average of about 33 persons per site. However, the range is very high

(from 20 to 70 anglers). About 22 percent of the fishers were introduced to the site through

their family, and almost a third (32 percent) learned about the site via friends. Only 12

percent discovered the site through road signs, and an even lower percentage (6 percent)

read about the site in a brochure or fishing literature. 

• Participation in other activities apart from fishing. Most anglers (65 percent) participate

in other activities apart from fishing, including picnicking (57 percent), swimming (25

percent), walking (9 percent), and boating (15 percent). Black Point Marina and Convoy
5-12 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Point attract fishers interested in a variety of activities, especially at the latter site. Conversely, Mowry Canal anglers do not participate in many other activities apart from fishing. 

• Site knowledge. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents knew that the land from which

they were fishing belongs to BISC. However, over two-thirds (68 percent) have heard of

Biscayne National Park. Half of the Convoy Point fishers knew that the site is owned by the

park, compared to 23 percent of Black Point Marina fishers and 14 percent of Mowry Canal

fishers; almost a quarter of the respondents from the latter sites believe that their sites are

owned by the State of Florida. The higher percentage of awareness among Convoy Point

fishers is expected, as Convoy Point has a number of signs welcoming visitors to Biscayne

National Park. Finally, over 70 percent of Mowry Canal and 77 percent of Convoy Point

respondents had heard of Biscayne National Park, compared to 55 percent of Black Point

Marina fishers. 

5.1.2 Summary

This work suggests there is a considerable concentration of anglers who use BISC canals and

shoreline for recreational fishing. The visitors at the sites are ethnically diverse but do not show

a concentration towards a single ethnic group (when compared with the County’s demographic

profile). This work also determined that there are differences in the levels of exclusivity that

fishing enjoys among sites, as some sites are more suitable for multiple-use activities. Finally,

this work concludes that while there is much local knowledge that fishers have about the area,

a smaller percentage of them know they are fishing in BISC waters. While Black Point Marina

and Convoy Point are clearly marked as public facilities, there are no signs near Mowry Canal

that indicate the area is part of BISC or is otherwise public land.

Fishers are usually local residents. For example, fishers who travel to Black Point Marina

almost never fish in the other two sites (or in any other BISC sites). Similarly, there is only

exchange among anglers between the adjacent Mowry Canal and Convoy Point sites, and not

between the more northern Black Point Marina. 

When first examined, the ethnicity of visitors at the canals and shoreline appears skewed

towards Hispanics. However, it should be noted that Hispanics make up the majority ethnic

group in Miami-Dade County, comprising 57.3 percent of the 2.25 million residents (U.S.

Bureau of the Census 2001b). African Americans and Anglo-Americans make up 20.3 percent

and 20.7 percent of the County’s population, respectively. Of the 522 persons observed during

the 12 observation sessions, 60.3 percent were Hispanics, 28.5 percent were African American,

and 11.1 percent were Anglo-Americans. This shows that, demographically, Anglo-Americans

are underrepresented, while African Americans are overrepresented. But, the study does not

take into account the subregional demographics, namely of southern Miami-Dade County, as

most of the respondents in the study stated that they were local residents and selected the sites

due to proximity; subregional demographics may well demonstrate that the visitors represent

a cross-section of the area’s ethnicity.

Although site selection is determined largely by proximity (as stated by the respondents), site

fidelity and repeat visits are related strongly to the types of activities in which the fishers
National Park Service 5-13

participate. For example, Convoy Point fishers reported the lowest abundances of targeted

species; however, this group also stated participating in the most nonfishing activities.

Therefore, Convoy Point B, which has an extensive shoreline with picnic facilities, provides

more than a fishing experience, compared to Mowry Point and Black Point Marina. These

latter sites are canal-based, and they do not offer many other amenities. Accordingly, although

several respondents at Black Point Marina do participate in other nonfishing activities, a little

more than a third at Mowry Point do anything else but fish. These differences are important,

as they demonstrate that while fishing may be the ostensible reason for visitation, there are

other reasons for site selection in BISC. This is reinforced by the fact that a majority of the

fishers did not report either selling or retaining all fish. Instead, most respondents release

undersized fish, and a smaller percentage releases all fish. Park law enforcement personnel

report that retention of undersize fish continues to be a problem, and their observations

regarding consumption of caught fish being a primary objective of shoreline fishing is

consistent with interview findings.

5.1.3 Inshore Fishing

Unfortunately for this assessment, it was not feasible to perform the same type of data

collection for inshore recreational fishing as for shoreline fishing since inshore fishing takes

place in boats in the bay. However, interviews with BISC staff and with individuals who

participate in inshore fishing provided an outline of inshore fishing activities. There are guided

and unguided inshore fishermen. The unguided fishermen fish within the bay and environs for

a wide variety of fin fish as well as lobster and crabs. Most of these fishermen use conventional

gear, although there are some who spear fish and still others who fly fish. There is also a guided

component of the inshore fishery that focuses on flats fishing for bonefish, tarpon, and other

gamefish using light tackle, including fly fishing gear. 

Inshore guided fishing is exemplified by the bonefishery. Bonefish (Albula vulpes) feed in

shallow water on shrimp, crabs, and other crustaceans, as well as other fish. Bonefish are

usually not eaten, but they are a highly prized gamefish. The bonefish of Biscayne Bay are noted

for their size, averaging 7 plus pounds, which attracts anglers seeking these larger fish.

Fishermen who fish for bonefish may also target tarpon, kingfish, snook, permit, and other

species of opportunity. The number of bonefish guides varies from season to season, but there

appears to be about a dozen full-time operators, and perhaps three times that many part-time

or occasional guides. Guides from Islamorada also fish in Biscayne Bay because of its reputation for larger fish. Guides often specialize in either fly fishing or conventional gear, although

there are guides who will use both gear types. Some are locals who have guided for many years,

while others are seasonal guides from outside of the area who may fish Biscayne Bay in the

winter and Alaska in the summer. The guide population appears to be comprised primarily of

white, middle-aged men. Bonefish guides typically use small boats in the 18- to 25-foot range,

powered by outboards, and adapted to shallow water fishing. These vessels are typically kept

on trailers. Fishing is done on a half-day or full-day basis, with the former being more popular.

Homestead, Bayfront, Black Point, or Matheson Hammock Marinas each has bonefish guides.

More popular fishing areas are the flats on the east or west sides of the bay, or the seaward side

of Elliott Key. Early morning is preferred, although bonefishing is highly dependent on tides,
1.0 Purpose and Need

5-14 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs4 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Page 3

Figure 29

Black Point and Homestead Bayfront Marinas
National Park Service 5-15

since the fish tend to feed on moving tides. Once on the fishing grounds, the motor is turned

off and the boat is moved by means of a 20-foot-long graphite pole with a “foot” to prevent it

from sinking into the bottom. The guides’ responsibility is to spot the fish and suggest to their

clients how to place their lure or fly to ensure the best chance of a take. Still water represents

the best conditions because it is important to be able to see the fish. At the same time, bonefish

and other flats species are highly sensitive to movement and flat, calm conditions present a

special challenge for anglers since they are more easily observed by bonefish at this time. Many

anglers prefer a slight chop on the water since this obscures the fish’s vision but allows the

angler to still see the fish. The guides pole their boats through likely sand and grass flats seeking

fish, then move between fishing areas using their motors.

Most guides work alone and take one or two customers at a time. The vast majority of

customers are single fishermen, but there are a few parties composed of husband and wife, or

husband, wife, and children. Clients are typically white, middle-class people from south

Florida, but not necessarily from the immediate park vicinity. Rates vary depending on the

reputation and experience of a particular guide, but full days range from $375 to $600 per day.

A number of people who participate in the bonefish fishery, both as guides and fishermen,

belong to the Miami Rod and Reel Club. This organization promotes catch and release

techniques, has fishing and environmental education programs for both youngsters and adults,

and holds a number of fishing tournaments.

Unguided inshore fishing is a major pasttime of BISC users. Boaters are also sometimes casual

fishermen, but fishing in the bay is an important type of use among residents of nearby

communities. The county marinas as well as private docking facilities are the major points of

access for fishermen who may fish from almost any type of powered, sail, or paddled vessel,

although fishing from a powered boat is the usual mode for inshore fishermen. Cruising near

Sands Cut, throwing a line from the docks near Stiltsville, or anchored in boats near Christmas

Point, fishermen catch gray and mangrove snapper, sea trout, a variety of jacks, as well as other

species such as barracuda. Shrimp are a preferred live bait for inshore fishermen, although

artificial lures thrown with spinning or bait casting tackle are popular fishing tactics. It appears

these fish are caught to eat, although there are reports that some recreational fishermen catch

an excess of their limits and sell these fish for commercial purposes. Enforcement rangers in

BISC report that poaching of various types is a common occurrence in the park, and this

represents an ongoing challenge for resource management.

5.1.4 Offshore Fishing

Offshore fishing is typically done in larger, diesel-powered boats in the 30- to 50-foot range.

Preliminary research suggests that most offshore fishing boats that use park waters are kept in

marinas at Black Point or Crandon, although they are also found at Homestead Bayfront and

Matheson Hammock (Figure 29). Offshore fishing boats at Haulover and Pelican Harbor

apparently enter park waters only infrequently. It is not known at this time how many offshore

fishing boats operate within park boundaries, but it is apparently a sizeable number, perhaps

several dozen. 
1.0 Purpose and Need

5-16 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs8 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Page 3

Figure 30

Black Point Marina (top) and

Stone Crab Claws (bottom)
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 5-17

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs6 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Figure 31

Wire Traps (Blue Crab) and Wood Slate Traps (Stone Crab and Lobster)

at Black Point Marina
5-18 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Offshore fishing boats often go up to 25 miles off shore. Day trips are typical. These boats

cruise at 12 to 20 knots and might consume 100 to 150 gallons of diesel per day. They use park

areas to prepare bait, but their main use of park waters is to pass through on their way to

offshore fishing areas. Fishing parties typically consist of a few white, middle-aged, middleclass males. Occasionally, couples or families also form fishing parties. Offshore fishing

captains also occasionally take out parties of divers, although the destination of the divers

would have to be outside of BISC due to terms of the park concessionaire agreement. Limited

interview data suggest that perhaps 50 percent or more of clients are from south Florida and

the rest are tourists from outside the area. Some skippers sell portions of the catch for

additional income.

Most offshore fishing guides are white, middle-aged males who have lived in the area for a long

time. Most work at it full time. The complexities and expense of obtaining the required

licenses apparently tends to discourage part-time participation, to say nothing of the expense

of maintaining an offshore fishing boat. Like the inshore fishing guides, many of the offshore

fishing boat captains are members of the Miami Rod and Reel Club.

5.2 Commercial Fishing

5.2.1 Blue Crab

The blue crab fishery is limited, with perhaps only 10 or 20 participants in park waters. Blue

crab fishermen use skiffs in the 15- to 20-foot range, powered by outboard motors. These small

craft are typically kept on trailers. Most blue crab fishermen who use park waters launch their

skiffs from Black Point, but some may launch from Matheson Hammock and Homestead

Bayfront as well. From their skiffs, these fishermen typically set 80 to 200 traps; the average is

approximately 100. They might retrieve one-quarter to one-half of their traps each time they

go out. Blue crab fishermen operate in shallow water in the vicinity of estuaries, canals, etc.

They typically sell their catch to fishmarkets, particularly the Golden Rule Fishmarket.

Most participants in the blue crab fishery are part time; perhaps 30 percent are full time. Most

are Anglo, although some men of Cuban ethnicity also participate. Most are long-time residents

in the local area. Preliminary research suggests ages of these fishermen vary from the 20s to the

50s. There is apparently no formal association representing crab fishermen.

5.2.2 Stone Crab

The stone crab fishery is somewhat similar to the blue crab fishery, and some blue crab

fishermen are also stone crab fishermen (Figures 30 and 31). Stone crab traps are much heavier

(approximately 40 pounds), and this necessitates use of a larger boat. The season for stone crab

is from mid-October to mid-May. Most stone crab fishermen are full time because the

permit/certificate system is based on yearly catch, which places part-time fishermen at a

disadvantage. The pattern among some stone crab fishermen is to fish inside the park early in

the season, then the Key Largo area. Others work the Black Point area for the whole season.

The catch is sold to local fishhouses, e.g., the Golden Rule Fishmarket and the Key Largo

Fisheries. 
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 5-19

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs7 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Figure 32

Commercial Fishing Vessels at Dinner Key Marina (top) and

Black Point Marina (bottom)
1.0 Purpose and Need

5-20 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs9 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Page 3

Figure 33

Commercial Fishing Vessels at Card Sound
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 5-21

Figure 34

Commercial Fishing Vessels at Black Point Marina
5-22 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

5.2.3 Wingnet Shrimpers

Wingnet shrimpers use skiffs 25 to 30 feet long that are powered by outboard motors. These

skiffs are mounted on trailers. Most launch at Crandon and other places north of park.

Wingnetters typically do not fish within BISC as it is too far south of their base of operations,

although some use of the northern edge of the park is reported. 

The wingnet boats have a framework that supports a dip net on each side of the vessel. The

framework is lowered into the water, and the boat powers slowly into the schools of shrimp as

they rise to the surface. The wingnetters typically work areas around estuaries, canals, and

bridges. The best time for wingnetting is during strong winds, especially northerners, because

shrimp leave the bottom during these conditions and get up in the water column. When not on

a set, the nets extend on each side of the skiff like wings, hence the name wingnet. 

Wingnet shrimpers typically work at night, one or two people to a boat. Most are men, but

some women also participate, and a few women have their own vessels. Virtually all wingnet

shrimpers are of Cuban descent. The fishery is a relatively recent development and the wingnet

apparatus was reportedly invented in the Miami area by a Cuban expatriate some 25 years ago.

Ages of participants vary from the 20s to the 60s. An organization was formed in the late 1990s

called The Wingnet Shrimpers of Florida. The organization has approximately 95 members,

but approximately 500 people participate in the fishery. The season is now limited to 6 months.

All the catch goes to fishpackers, who ship it to fishmarkets around the country. The wingnet

organization is attempting to set up a cooperative to distribute their own product. 

5.2.4 Trawl Shrimpers

Another shrimp fishery pursued in Biscayne Bay focuses on shrimp for bait and uses trawl gear.

This has been described as the most intense commercial fishery use of the park. Especially in

the summertime, the vessels work the western side of the bay in the grasses relatively close to

the mainland shore. The vessels that use the park are concentrated in Black Point and Dinner

Key (Figure 32), although there are also one or two vessels in the Card Sound area that use BISC

waters (Figure 33). The largest single concentration is at Black Point, with perhaps 12 or 13

vessels operating out of that marina, and all of these vessels operate as full-time commercial

operations (Figure 34). At least one vessel owner owns multiple vessels in this fishery.

Although the fishery has some historical depth, interview data suggest that only a very few of

the current participants have fished it for more than a decade. 

Unlike the food shrimp fishery, the bait shrimp fishery has no closed season and is reportedly

pursued seven days a week, year round. Markets for the shrimp caught in this fishery are bait

and tackle stores, and catch is typically “pre-sold” through existing supply agreements. The

stores supplied with bait from Biscayne Bay range from Key West to well north of Miami, and

stores may buy from more than one fishing operation to hedge against a drop in performance

from any one operation. Trawl tows are typically 15 to 30 minutes in duration, with catch

retained in tanks on board after being sorted on picking trays to allow for the release of bycatch

species. The financial return on effort varies significantly during the year as, according to one

owner, “you make money in the winter, and [just] pay the bills in the summer.”
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 5-23

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs12 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Figure 35

“Stiltsville” Structures
5-24 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

With the hydraulic system on board, a vessel can be run by just the captain, but typically a mate

is added in the winter time to help handle the increase in volume, at least when fishing on the

weekends. One trawl is set on each side of the vessel, and typically vessels fall into the 27- to

32-foot range. In addition to the summer being generally slower than the winter, the period

between Labor Day and the start of November is especially slow, as is a two-week period

around Christmas. Interview data suggest that no significant gear conflicts are reported

between shrimpers and crabbers, both of whom work in BISC out of Black Point, but in the past

some conflicts occurred between local shrimpers and longliners working out of Miami.

Participants in the fishery are typically described as white, long-time south Florida residents,

but little information has been collected regarding this to date, and it is known that at least some

captains are of Cuban-American descent.

5.3 Stiltsville

Stiltsville has been the subject of a number of management-related documents in recent years,

and the legal context of the ongoing management of those resources will not be recapitulated

here. Stiltsville is a group of seven structures built on pilings or stilts (Figure 35). At one time

there were more than 25 structures, but the harsh saltwater environment and the occasional

hurricane has reduced the number over the years. The architecture varies, but all are rustic

wood and plywood structures, somewhat similar to vacation cabins. Stiltsville is located in

shallows in the extreme north end of the park, east-southeast of Matheson Hammock, and

southwest of Key Biscayne. Most of these houses are leased by small groups of people; one is

leased by The Miami Springs Powerboat Club, and another is leased by an extended family. All

current structures are of relatively recent origin, and two attempts at listing the structures singly

or as a group on the National Register have been unsuccessful.

Most Stiltsville users are long-time area residents who use the structures as weekend retreats.

It is also not unusual to observe boats tied up to the docks of some structures and people other

than the regular occupants fishing off the docks. One Stiltsville occupant noted that as long as

people respect the property, such casual use is acceptable. Some occupants also encourage civic

and other organizations to use their properties for special events or outings. For example, Boy

Scouts, Girl Scouts, various church groups, the Miami Chamber of Commerce, Disabled

Veterans, Shake-A-Leg Sailing Club (for disabled children), and other groups have used

Stiltsville properties for weekends or other outings. Some Stiltsville occupants suggest that

these properties offer an opportunity for the leaseholders to exercise community service by

sharing their facilities with these community groups. Stiltsville structures are also used for

events such as graduation parties, business gatherings, and other occasions where people need

a place to gather in an outdoor setting. Is is also possible to observe crowds of young people

lounging on the decks and docks, listening to music, and otherwise socializing, swimming,

fishing, or just relaxing and watching passing boats. Since most of these structures are within

easy reach of Miami-based boaters, these structures also can be a base of operations for a day

of diving, fishing, or just extended boating. 

Interviews with two Stiltsville leaseholders and two other persons who are in the same network

as these leaseholder suggest that these properties represent a connection with the Miami, south

Florida, and Keys culture that existed prior to the influx of immigrants and the emergence of
National Park Service 5-25

Latin and Carribean influences on local culture. For those individuals, Stiltsville represents

“their culture” and “their history” in a social environment where other elements of traditional

lifestyles have faded into the background. Even the most mundane Stiltsville activities represent

continuity with the Miami of their childhood and the hopes that it can be passed on to their

children. This expresses an understandable desire for the persistence of a lifestyle in

communities where there has been and continues to be significant social and cultural change.

There is also a sense of Stiltsville as part of community as well as individual history. While

apparently not qualifying as a “traditional use” in National Park Service parlance, continuity of

use is still highly valued by the leaseholders of the current structures, and despite the fact that

all but one structure is used by groups defined by factors other than extended family kinship

relations.

5.4 The Boating Community

Boaters are the most frequent visitors to BISC. On almost any day, but especially on weekends,

the harbor at Boca Chita is filled with powerboats or sailboats. Boaters tie up next to one

another and share drinks, meals, and conversation. Others picnic on the grounds nearby, visit

the lighthouse, or explore the island. Boaters from the inter-coastal waterway also cruise

through park waters, some on their way to other destinations while others anchor in the lee of

Elliott, Boca Chita, or sometimes Adams Key. Miami boaters usually come out of one of the

nearby County marinas and either cruise through the park or find an anchoring spot such as

Sands Cut. This popular spot is a destination for kayakers, small and large power boats, as well

as sailboats of various sizes. Visitors from Key Largo and south as well as the Homestead area

sometime anchor near Caesar Creek between Old Rhodes Key and Adams Key and Elliott Key.

Others use this and other passages to the outer reefs, sometimes stopping at one of the 25

mooring buoys at 11 different coral reef or shipwreck locations where boaters tie up or anchor.

These are pleasant spots for snorkling, fishing, or just relaxing. The wide variety of boaters who

use Biscayne National Park can be roughly categorized into “powerboaters” and “sailors,” and

each of these groups is briefly described below.

5.4.1 Powerboaters

Most of the powerboats observed in park waters are small craft in the 18- to 30-foot range.

Virtually all have planing hulls. These boats are typically powered by relatively large, twostroke outboard motors. Most have a foredeck and at least a cuddy cabin (a small cabin below

decks with limited space for shelter or amenities) to provide some accommodation space for

overnight trips. Most have a vee berth forward and a porta-potty; some have galleys. Most of

the powerboats using park waters are kept on trailers.

Powerboat enthusiasts come from a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic classes. Most are

long-time residents. On the other hand, powerboat groundings are perceived by persons

interviewed for this work as a substantial environmental problem caused by novice boaters. A

large area south of Key Biscayne and north of Ragged Keys known as the “safety valve,” consists

of shoals, with another large complex of shoals located around Totten Key and east of Old

Rhodes Key. Outside of Old Rhodes Key is another large shoal area called Caesar Creek Bank.

Novice boaters often possess only minimal navigation skills and run aground in these areas. 
5-26 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Entering BISC from Homestead Bayfront Marina

Considerable damage to seagrass bottoms and water quality occurs when the boaters attempt

to power out.

There are numerous fish and dive destinations around the park, but when on boating-only

outings, sometimes there is no actual destination. Often boaters simply cruise around inside

and outside of Biscayne Bay and take in the sights and the fresh air. At other times, boaters visit

favorite anchorages and coves such as “the sandbar” (on the leeward side of Sands Cut), Boca

Chita, Sands Cut, and Adams Key. The sandbar is a shoal where numerous boaters anchor on

weekends. They raft up, sit in lawnchairs in the shallow water, wade around, and socialize. At

places like Boca Chita and Adams Key, boaters sometimes go ashore to explore or go for a walk.

Most said that they did not use park facilities very often but did operate in park waters. The

most substantial powerboating clubs operating in the park area are the Miami Springs

Powerboat Club and the Dinner Key Cruising Club. 

5.4.2 Sailors

Sailboats observed in park waters vary from dinghies to large craft in the over 50-foot range.

Most sailing that takes place in park waters consists of daysailing despite the fact that many of

the boats are designed and equipped for blue water cruising or offshore racing. Most sailboats

in the 30-foot range and larger are powered by relatively modest-sized diesel engines mounted

under the cockpit. Many smaller craft have small two-stroke, long-shaft outboard motors as

auxiliary power. These are typically hung on a bracket on the transom. 
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 5-27

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs10 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Figure 36

Commercial Tow Boat Operations at Homestead Bayfront Marina (top), and

Grounding Damage Adjacent to Boca Chita Key (bottom)
5-28 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Virtually all sailboats longer than 20 feet are decked over and have a cabin, or in the case of the

smaller boats, a cuddy cabin. Smaller sailboats have a vee berth forward and a porta-potty;

some have galleys consisting of a one-burner stove, a small sink, and an icebox. Large modern

sailboats typically have berths for several sailors, a galley with a refrigerator, a head with a

shower, and a large main salon. 

In contrast to smaller powerboats, both small and large sailboats are designed to be lived in for

at least a few days at a time. While smaller planing powerboats travel at speeds of 30 to 50

knots, smaller sailboats have a top speed under good sea conditions of perhaps 5 or 6 knots.

While a small powerboat may well take 2 or 3 hours to travel 100 miles, it might take a small

sailboat 24 hours, so overnight accommodations are more essential on a sailboat. 

Sailors come from a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic classes, but based upon interview

data and participant observation, most seem to be white, middle-class, middle-aged men. Most

are long-time residents of the Miami-Dade area. Most said that they did not use park facilities

very often but do frequently sail in the park and through the park on the way to offshore waters.

Sailors suggest that BISC is a great place to sail because the air and water are always warm, there

is usually good wind, and the area offers beautiful scenery. 

Smaller sailboats are often kept on trailers, but very few sailboats longer than 25 feet fit well on

trailers because of deep ballast keels. Larger sailboats that are regularly operated in park waters

are kept in marinas at Crandon, Matheson Hammock, Black Point, and Homestead Bayfront.

In addition, numerous sailboats are kept at yacht club docks and mooring buoys. 

The most important sailing organizations operating in the park area are the Coral Reef Yacht

Club, the Coconut Grove Sailing Club, the Key Biscayne Yacht Club, and the United States

Sailing Center. The latter is a new organization based in Coconut Grove whose focus is training

Olympic sailing teams. The other organizations are more or less typical yacht clubs with youth

programs, dingy, PHRF, and one-design racing programs, most of which focus on around-thebuoy races that typically take place in the park. In addition, each of the yacht clubs hosts a

number of annual social and civic events. 

The major annual sailing event that takes place in the park is the Columbus Day Regatta. This

is a multi-club event coordinated by the Marine Council, a local advocacy group for marine

interests in Miami-Dade County. It is apparently Florida’s oldest sailing race, featuring numerous classes and trophies. It is not a heavily sponsored event, but rather an unpretentious race

for families and ordinary sailors. The irony is that this low-key race has, according to its

organizers, become unwillingly associated with a huge raucous party. The party has overshadowed the regatta and has caused law enforcement and public health and safety concerns for

the park as well as other jurisdictions. Because of these concerns and what many in the

yachting community perceive as very negative publicity, the future of the regatta is uncertain.

5.5 Tow Boat Operations

Another type of use of BISC is represented by several tow boat companies in the area that

frequently operate in park waters. Some are associated with national organizations like SeaTow

and Tow Boat/US (Figure 36). The most common type of watercraft used as tow boats within the
National Park Service 5-29

park are 20- to 25-foot vessels powered with two large outboard motors, in the 100- to 200-

horsepower range. However, some larger inboard diesel-powered vessels are also available. 

Dead batteries in small craft of both experienced and novice boaters account for most of the tow

boat activity. The tow boats usually jumpstart the dead battery or, if that fails, then the boat is

towed to its home port.

One operator suggested that approximately 10 percent of his calls consist of requests to refloat

vessels that have run hard aground in various shoal areas. This is the most complicated and

lucrative part of the tow business even though it is a very small percentage of calls. 

Groundings occur primarily in three shoal complexes in the park. The largest shoal area within

the park is located south of Key Biscayne and north of Ragged Keys. This area encompasses

Stiltsville and Biscayne Channel toward the north, and Soldier Key toward the south. A small

complex of shoals is located west of Lewis Cut and includes Featherbed Bank. In the south

portion of the park is a large complex of shoals located around Totten Key and west of Old

Rhodes Key. Outside Old Rhodes Keys is a large shoal called Caesar Creek Bank. Most

groundings within the park apparently take place in the northern shoal complex, probably

because of its proximity to the city of Miami. Most often, people who run aground on these

shoals are novice powerboaters and/or new to the area. They often possess only minimal

navigation skills and seamanship. Considerable damage to seagrass bottoms and water quality

occurs if/when they attempt to apply high power when starting from a dead stop; the powerful

propeller cuts into the bottom and throws up silt, sand, and seagrass. Sailors also run aground,

but less frequently. This may be because sailing requires more training and skill just to get the

boat to go in the desired direction. Novice sailors tend to be more cautious and have higher levels

of seamanship by the time they venture into unknown waters. Sailors also cause less damage to

the bottom when they do run aground because they go much slower and the keel or centerboard

of a sailboat is much lower than the propeller, so only the keel hits the bottom. 

Typically on a hard grounding within the park, the tow boat operator notifies the park and the

park sends someone out to assess the situation. The tow operator and the park representative

discuss the predicament and decide the best way to take the boat off with minimal damage to

the bottom. If the grounded vessel is a large one, it is lightened by taking off fuel and water.

Some situations require removal of the propeller and the placement of airbags to add buoyancy.

Tow boat operators generally expressed satisfaction with the park procedures. They did suggest

that channels might be better marked by placing buoys close together so boaters can easily see

from one to the next (e.g., 400 yards) and by lighting all channel buoys. Also, increased boater

education was suggested as a way of minimizing groundings and damage to the bay bottom. In

sociocultural terms, tow operators may be seen as inheritors of a local tradition of making a

living off mariners in distress in the area that is now BISC. Unlike wreckers of old, however,

towboat services assist in avoiding maritime catastrophes rather than profiting by them after the

fact.

5.6 Sport Diving

There is one dive operation with exclusive rights via a concessionaire agreement to operate a

dive shop and diving charters within the park. This operation is located within the Dante

Fascell Visitor Center at the park headquarters complex at Convoy Point. However, numerous
5-30 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

other Scuba divers and free divers (also referred to as snorkelers or skin divers) access the park

using their own vessels. Additionally, there are several dive shops outside the park that also

serve the sport diving community.

There are substantial seasonal differences in sport diving in south Florida and also differences

between scuba and free divers in terms of dive locations and party demographics. Not many

divers use the area between Labor Day and Thanksgiving. The best underwater visibility tends

to be in June and July. 

According to interview data, the vast majority of scuba divers using the park tend to be south

Florida residents, perhaps 80 percent, and most are white, middle-class males. Increasing

numbers of Hispanics and women are participating in sport diving, however. Approximately

half of the divers using the charter facilities within the park come as part of dive club activities

and many others come to the park as a function of dive shop-sponsored trips. Of the groups

that come to the park from outside of the area, most are from the Gulf Coast. These scuba

parties typically go south of Boca Chita, to Adams Key or outside the keys, for example to Ball

Buoy Reef, Pacific Reef, or to Mandalay Wreck.

Free diving as a specific focal activity within the park tends to be dominated by tourists, 60 to

70 percent of whom are from the United States and Canada. Most of these are white, middleclass men or families. In the fall, winter, and spring, 80 percent of the free divers using the parklicensed charter facilities are tourists. In the summer, more locals participate in free diving,

although they are still in the minority. Free divers tend to go to more shallow dive spots like

One Mile Reef, One Half-Mile Reef, and Marker 3. In foul weather, both scuba and free diving

parties go to dive spots inside the Keys. A number of recreational boaters who use the park also

free dive as an adjunct to other activities (such as picnicking or socializing).

Divers commented on the good reef development in the park and good park resource

management; some suggested that the park has the healthiest marine environment from Miami

to the Dry Tortugas. However, some expressed concern about ongoing reef and other bottom

damage. Some divers would like to see the park ban all trawling and trapping and note that

since gill netting was banned, the fish population has substantially increased. 

5.7 Environmentalists

There are several environmental groups active in the area of the park that have indicated an

interest in the park and park resource management activities: the Sierra Club, the Tropical

Audubon Society, the Isaac Walton League, Citizens for a Better South Florida, Urban

Environment League, 1000 Friends of Florida, the Biscayne Bay Foundation, and the Coastal

Conservation Association. 

These organizations and their members are concerned about numerous environmental issues

in the south Florida area, some of which directly involve park lands and waters. Virtually all

are concerned with the overall quality of Biscayne Bay. This concern is focused on several

issues:

• Leaching of effluent into the aquifer from the sanitary landfill at Black Point (dubbed

“Mount Trashmore” by locals, given the height of the facility in relation to the surrounding

flat land).
National Park Service 5-31

• The injection of treated sewage deep underground at Black Point. There is concern, based

on some scientific research, that this treated sewage is leaking into the Biscayne aquifer.

• The damage to the bay bottom caused by the large fuel barge servicing the Turkey Point

Power Plant, and the potential for spills from this barge.

• The future of the former Homestead Air Force Base. Various proposals for development

cause concern about impacts on Biscayne Bay, although the threat of redevelopment as a

major civilian airport appears to have passed.

• The effects of continued shrimp trawling in the bay. Bottom damage and a big bycatch are

viewed as destructive to Biscayne Bay.

• Extractive uses: at least some of the environmental organizations would like to see all

commercial fishing banned from the park because, in their view, it damages the marine

environment in various ways and is not compatible with the role of a park in preserving a

natural area. 

• Wetlands loss around Biscayne Bay and south Florida in general. 

• Suburban sprawl into open space and wild areas and the increased air and water pollution

that results. Many see the need for a large open-space buffer around the park.

• Agricultural runoff as a major pollution problem for the bay.

• Lax enforcement of park rules caused by underfunding. Irregular enforcement is seen as

encouraging violations and damage to the park.

Some environmental organizations, e.g., the Sierra Club, Isaac Walton League, and the Tropical

Audubon Society, sponsor outings in the park and other natural areas; other organizations do

not. However, virtually all environmentalists use the park on an individual basis. These

activities include kayaking, canoeing, sailing, diving, and fishing. Environmentalists tend to

favor nonmotorized or “human powered” sports. Virtually all members of local chapters of

national environmental organizations and members of local organizations live in the MiamiDade area. Most members tend to be white, middle-class, and college-educated.

5.8 Other Community-Biscayne National Park Connections

Recreational and commercial fishermen, boaters, and environmentalists are among the most

visible of users and park interest groups. There are others, less visible, but still with significant

interests in BISC. In this section interviews and participant observation with two other groups,

Miami Blacks and Old Family Miami, are briefly described. Fieldwork also indicates there may

be other less visible interest and user groups that require further consideration.

5.8.1 South Florida Blacks

Blacks are not conspicuous users of national parks in general, and this is also a reality for the

relationship of south Florida Blacks with BISC. However, there are two direct cultural
5-32 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

connections between Blacks in Miami and south Florida and BISC. One is the Parson Jones

property near Jones Lagoon on Porgy Key and the other is the park area in the immediate

vicinity of the Visitor’s Center. The area near the Visitor’s Center was once one of two

segregated all-black beaches in the Miami region, the other being Virginia Key Beach. Each of

these sites expresses a different and contrasting type of cultural connection with park

resources.

The Parson Jones site is an abandoned house on the edge of Jones Lagoon that includes other

features such as a hand-dug channel, remnants of key lime plantations, and other outbuildings

and features. The site is culturally important for multiple reasons, including its representation

of an older land-owning south Florida family living in the Keys whose members were successful

agricultural entrepreneurs and also notable because they were black. Successful black land

owners in the Florida Keys were unusual at the turn of the century. This history of Parson

Jones and his family is a backdrop for the emerging meaning of this site for south Florida’s

black community.

Parson Jones arrived in the Miami area from his birth state of North Carolina. He worked at

various jobs, including building houses, that allowed him to accumulate enough cash to buy

Porgy Key in south Biscayne Bay in 1897. He and his wife Moselle and his two sons Lancelot

and Arthur moved to their new property in 1902. They later acquired land on both Old Rhodes

and Totten Key and eventually had more than 250 acres of property used for lime and other

citrus plantings as well as pineapples. Parson’s wife Moselle died in 1925, and he subsequently

sold his property on Totten Key for approximately $250,000. Parson died in 1932 leaving his

estate to his two sons. Lancelot lived on Porgy Key until 1992 when Hurricane Andrew

destroyed his home. Park Rangers tell stories of his evacuation from his property and his

continued residence on the Keys until he finally relocated to Miami where he died in 1997.

Lancelot was also a “local figure” who lived off the land and sea, did some sponging, but was

perhaps most well known as a bonefish guide. He guided Warren Harding, Lyndon Johnson,

Richard Nixon, and other statesmen and industrialists who hunted bonefish in the environs of

Biscayne Bay. Local fisherman also fished with Lancelot and report that he had uncanny

abilities to find wary bonefish in the shallow flats of Biscayne Bay.

The Parson Jones site along with the Virginia Key Beach site are of interest to some local Blacks

because each represents elements of the history of Blacks in south Florida. Virginia Beach, like

American Beach near Jacksonville, Florida, expresses the segregation of Blacks in the history

of this region. On the other hand, the Parson Jones home site represents the story of a

successful black entrepreneur who, like other Old South Florida families, lived in the Keys and

enjoyed the south Florida lifestyle. The history of the Jones family may be interpreted as a

contrast to history of blacks in Florida who experienced segregation and inter-racial conflict.

That is, the Jones’s story represents the perseverance of a black family in a hostile social and

natural environment who, in the words of one black observer of the site, “through their actions,

these people transcend the heights and depths of our culture.” The Jones site is interpreted as

a black contribution to the development of south Florida and of the relationship of Blacks to

the land as owners and not slave laborers or sharecroppers with no investment in the land. The

Jones site may be symbolic of the desire of Blacks to have a stake in environmental issues and

National Parks and their management. It may also symbolize successful entrepreneurship

despite an oppressive social environment. The relationship of the site to the wider black

community and other non-black interests in south Florida is a developing process. Currently,
National Park Service 5-33

Jones Family Homesite Marker

there are efforts to develop awareness about the site and particularly the history it represents

both as an aspect of park history and as an expression of the black experience in south Florida.

The other site in BISC of particular historical interest for Blacks is the grounds around the

current Park Headquarters and Visitor’s Center. At one time this area was a “Blacks Only”

beach much like American Beach and Virginia Key Beach. This was a place where Blacks

gathered to swim, picnic, and enjoy their weekends. One former user of this beach described

the use of the area as follows:

You see the harbor over there, that is where people used to swim, yeah, we

would come here on the weekend, on Sunday after Church sometimes it would

be for birthday parties, you would see your cousins and have a picnic. We would

have collard greens and barbecue and we would get the land crabs that used to

be here and cook them too. 

People would dance, it would be ‘showtime’ for people to strut their stuff. It was

a getaway place for us, a little fishing, a little dancing, a good time. There were

young kids too along with the adults, and we would play games dodge-ball, strike

and run, and stingamarie. And people would go fishing with a cane pole out here

for mullet and things. Then we might sometimes have a fish fry. 

Some people, like my mother and sister, they would go out to Elliott Key and

camp, sometimes they would stay a week right next door at the marina, that was

the white beach. . . . Then in the sixties they integrated the beach next door. 
5-34 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

It used to be this getaway place, and now it still is, only for different people. You

see more Hispanics here now, they come from Hialeah and other places because

here they don’t have to worry about drive-bys, it is a safe spot with less violence

than where they live. So, I guess it is not a lot different than when I was growing

up, a safe spot for getaways.

Blacks are still occasional users of the environs around the Visitor’s Center, but as a recent

visitor’s study indicates, Blacks account for about 2 percent of the BISC’s visitors (Simmons and

Littlejohn 2002). This present-day user volume appears to be a strong contrast with the

common weekend getaway use of the park described in the gentleman’s statement above. Park

staff observations, supported by limited participant observation at the Visitor Center, suggests

that Hispanics are now more common weekend visitors than are Blacks. Blacks still fish from

Convoy Point and stroll through the area enjoying the views, but groups of Hispanics appear

to be the most numerous users. This may be related to the region’s shifting demography. It may

also be related to other cultural factors regarding how Blacks perceive and use public spaces

such as national parks. If the Jones site provides some cultural investment of Blacks in BISC,

this is a step toward changing perceptions that places such as BISC can once again be weekend

getaways for Blacks as well as others. BISC also presents a unique interpretive opportunity with

the Parson Jones site offshore representing a different set of circumstances than that seen in the

segregated beach site on the mainland, with both contributing to the complex picture of black

local experiences in the twentieth century.

5.8.2 Old Family Miami

Before BISC was a national park, Boca Chita, Elliott, and other Keys were sites for weekend

homes and permanent residences that ranged from shacks to mansions. Some of these were

occupied by “old family” or the long-term residents of the region while others were owned by

outsiders who visited for vacations or extended stays. However, old family residents developed

strong ties to the region and made south Florida their home. As a segment of Miami society,

old family is a self-explanatory descriptor of residents with a family history of multiple

generations in the Miami area. These families tend to be white and in the middle to upper

socioeconomic class. Old families often have an interest in BISC and its resources because of

past and ongoing activities that have developed a sense of attachment to the place and its

resources. For one such family this sense of attachment has a foundation in past as well as

present-day connections with the bay and Keys.

My family has been using the park before it was the park or the monument. We

used to go for walks on the beaches out on the Keys, looking for bottles and neat

trash. We would fish and we did some diving too, it was just a natural place to

go because the area is so close. There have never been that many people there

because of all of the hype about the keys [the more southern Keys below Key

Largo]. Biscayne still does not have recognition; there is almost zero reputation.

People would talk about it as Biscayne Bay or Elliott Key, but usually not as

Biscayne National Park. 

I want my kids to be able to enjoy it the way I did when I was a kid with my

family. My kids have been on the water since they were two weeks old. We go

fishing, we go diving, we visit the beaches, we take our boat out to just explore.
National Park Service 5-35

There is a big allure in boating, you can just get away, it is not like getting in the

car and driving, there is a kind of freedom in boating that you don’t get from

other things. And when you are out there, the water is warm and it is usually

calm. There is just nothing like laying there on the boat with the colors radiating

all around you. If you get hot you just roll off into the water and cool off, watch

the fish swim and enjoy it. That’s the kind of place it was for me as a kid, that is

how it is for my kids, and that’s how I want it to be for their kids, a place they can

go and enjoy what I did with my father.

BISC is important because it is intertwined with past and present family experiences as well as

hopes and expectations about what the future should be. For some old families, this family and

human history is as important a feature of BISC as its natural history. For example:

I think they [BISC managers] want it to be ‘environmentally pristine’ but it has

never been that way. The place has a human history too and that is as important

as its natural history. But I don’t see anyone there interested in that. I am

frustrated by it. There needs to be a sense of ownership of the place that isn’t

there now, there needs to be a feeling from the heart of caring for the place and

being genuinely interested it. I would like to see them develop some kind of

interpretative program about old Florida history and the relationship of that to

the park. It is important, but I don’t think they see that as important.

This expressed frustration is perhaps connected to other Miami-BISC issues, but it also

indicates a sense of history and attachment to BISC resources that predates the formation of

the area as a monument and then later a national park. For old families, BISC and its managers

are the newcomers who do not always seem to be caring for the full range of natural and

historical resources associated with the park. Such feelings may also motivate community

responses to the Stiltsville properties. For example, one leaseholder with connections to old

family groups indicated:

You can see Stiltsville from downtown Miami. When I look out there it is like

the Miami of a different time. I just don’t think the National Park Service gives

a whit about that. Their rationale is that these are not “natural” so therefore that

is not the way it should be. When they don’t exist, then the park will be “totally

natural” and it has not been that way for a long time. That is a kind of purist attitude that ignores the reality. Now, I am a big supporter of National Parks, but

a place is just not totally natural once you have put a road or something through

there and it is no longer that way. Biscayne is on the edge of this aquatic interstate highway and it is never going to be a pristine natural environment. This line

between the totally natural and the human just does not exist there. Those structures, people like them, they look neat, they are important to us and our history,

they need to find some way to fix this situation and live with them out there. 

This statement about Stiltsville expresses attachment to the human history as well as the natural

history of the region. This history is, for some old family groups, expressed in physical

structures such as Stiltsville, the Boca Chita complex, and for others in the natural resources of

BISC. However, it would be a mistake to suggest that Stiltsville is supported by all members of

what might be termed the old family group in Miami. For example, another person interviewed
5-36 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

who can also be characterized as old family was more equivocal about Stiltsville:

I am not a great supporter of private holdings in the park and I tend to favor nonconsumptive activities there. But the Park Service gave lessees too much latitude

in 1988 and 1990, there was just too much waffling and that did not help. I know

people feel that ‘big government’ is taking something from them and that is a

problem, but I still don’t think they [Stiltsville] are necessarily a good thing for

the bay, but then you do have the culture of the people who live there bumping

against the Park Service and it gets messy. . . .

The old family does not so much share a common view about Stiltsville or wreck diving, or any

other particular use of park resources as they share a historical perspective about the meanings

of their particular uses of the park. Whether it is the Stiltsville supporter, the beach combers,

or the old-time families of Elliott and Adams Keys, they appear to construct present-day

attachments to BISC from their own family and community experiences. BISC was once the

front yard of a densely populated urban environment, and people used this front yard in various

ways and developed different meanings about and attachments to these resources based on

their community and individual experiences. For these Miami residents, BISC is a relative

newcommer to the community and the newcomer’s investment in the natural and human

resources associated with the park is a developing story.

5.8.3 Contemporary Seminole and Miccosukee Connections with the Park

Park staff expressed a specific interest in the perceived associations of the Seminole and

Miccosukee with BISC. Consequently, these groups were contacted to participate in the

ethnographic interviews for the project. Unfortunately, no interviews with representatives of

the Miccosukee Tribe could be scheduled. One representative of the Semiole Tribe of Florida

was interviewed, but before any conclusions can be drawn about contemporary Native

American attachments to BISC resources, more data need to be collected. However, based on

some contemporary documents and the one interview, some limited findings can be reported.

Tribes have environmental, political, historical, and other interests in the natural resources of

south Florida. However, the socioeconomic conditions of each of these tribes have consumed

significant time and resources leaving only limited opportunity for involvement in other types

of concerns. Consequently, when tribes do not respond to letters of inquiry or requests for

input regarding land management issues, this does not necessarily mean a lack of interest since

time and resources are likely consumed by more immediate issues. Nonetheless, tribes are

sensitive to the process of consulting with them under the provisions of historic preservation

laws and other Executive Orders that prescribe the consultation process between tribes and the

federal government. There is an expectation of consultation about land managment issues of

concern to the tribes and there is also an expectation about respecting tribal processes and

traditions about such contacts.

One of the most prominent issues other than the necessity for attention to process in dealing

with the tribes is a developing view that contemporary Florida Native Americans have a long

history of attachment to and residence within south Florida, including the environs of Biscayne

Bay. “People feel as if this is their homeland, their territory, they know the land well, but they

see the world by water first. Their frame of the world is water.” This view is the most well
National Park Service 5-37

developed in Patricia Wickman’s most recent work that argues that Seminole history in Florida

is one that predates the time when Native Americans were thought to have been destroyed in

Florida by various natural and human agencies. Wickman argues that the view of Seminoles as

being a group reconstituted after the 1500s from the remnants of populations from outside

Florida that suffered from disease, famine, and invaders undermines their past and present

connections to the land. She argues that ethnographic and ethnohistorical data indicate that

Florida is in fact the “homeland” of the Seminole and other Native Americans in Florida.

Wickman illustrates and closes her argument with a quote from a tribal elder:

Out the Trail, all my life I have heard the elders tell us about the memories of the

people from long before the wars. And the old people spoke of ichi bomet as our

final home, and they knew the area very well. The ancestors knew which areas

were high and dry, where the hammocks were, where to find the food, and

where to build the camps. The knowledge of ichi bomet has been with our people

for a long long time. And ichi bomet was was more than just the nose of the deer.

It was that thin, long land where the soft, fresh, breezes would blow over us and

set our spirits free. When we all lived in that land, our spirits would be able to

blow gently over into the other world, to the West, without even having to cross

over physically. They knew about Florida, and our people were here for a long,

long time before the white people think we were (Wickman 1999: 221).

It is the nature of scholarship to reexamine and develop new interpretations as Dr. Wickman

does, but this is a long-term process that will certainly involve critique by other scholars.

However, the practical implications of her argument and the statements of the Seminoles she

consulted with to construct it are that these people possess a sense of attachment to this region

as their homeland and not some accidental waypoint dictated by historical circumstances

beyond the control of their ancestors. This worldview promotes a sense of attachment to and

investment in the management of resources such as BISC and Everglades National Park. As the

social and economic conditions of the tribes improve, it is likely they will take more direct

interest in those issues of direct cultural importance to them, whether the issues are about

cultural resources or particular management topics.
5-38 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment
National Park Service 6-1

6.0 SUMMARY: BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT AND

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES

BISC is an area of contrasts. From north to south, the geology of the park ranges from sand

barrier islands to coral Keys. From west to east, the ecological diversity of the park

encompasses coastal mangroves, the protected waters of the bay, a chain of Keys and, finally,

fringing coral reefs and deeper waters in the open Atlantic. The human uses of the park are as

diverse as its resources. To the north of the park is the urban Miami metropolitan area, and

toward the southern end of the park a “restored wilderness” can be found. While not a true

wilderness, the park abounds with natural areas that show few obvious signs of human presence

to the untrained eye. The park is at once the backyard playground to one of the great cities of

the United States, and a set of natural and cultural resources of great aesthetic and conservation

value. The park provides sustenance to shoreline fishers who use it to put food on their tables,

and it provides at least a portion of a living to fishing guides, commercial fishers, and others

who cater to the tourism trade. It is a recreational residence for individuals who may stay a day

or two as campers or for a few who are occupants of Stiltsville.

The communities adjacent to BISC are changing. Miami has undergone significant

demographic change in recent years and is a truly cosmopolitan center. In many ways, Miami

is as much the northern fringe of Latin America as it is the southern fringe of urban America.

Significant causes of this evolving reality include global as well as local factors. The growth and

dominance of a Cuban-American population in the area can be directly traced to Cold Warrelated population flows, and Haitian and Nicaraguan immigration to the special relationship

Miami has to the Caribbean and its economy. BISC itself has proven a crossroads in this

change. For example, Haitian immigrants on crude vessels desperate to enter the United States

have come into BISC where the Gulf Stream passes closest to American shores. The same area

that was earlier the playground of the richest of the rich in America when wealthy families from

the Northeast would vacation on the Keys is now at times a passionate destination goal of the

poorest of the poor seeking a new start and a new life in this country. 

While this report, by design an ethnographic overview and assessment, focused on existing

literature, it is clear that there are park use patterns and associated community connections that

are not adequately represented in the existing literature. For example, it is known that the local

Mexican-American community has grown in recent years, and based on anecdotal evidence it

would appear that there is at least some use of the park by this community for shoreline fishing.

In contrast, Cuban-Americans often use the Keys within the park as a recreational destination

site. These two communities or populations, while sharing an Hispanic heritage, appear to use

two different areas of the park (onshore and offshore, respectively), accessed by two different

means (vehicle and vessel), for two different (among other) primary uses (consumptive use of

resources versus non-consumptive use). As suggestive as these initial findings may be, however,

the Mexican-American use of the park is all but invisible in existing documents. In fact,

research for this project shows that at least a good portion of shore based users of the park (e.g.,

86 percent of the fishers contacted at Mowry Canal) do not know they are in a national park.

This, obviously, presents management challenges to BISC staff. In general, the fact that BISC

is a park “without a front gate” presents its own set of management challenges, and structures

the relationship of the park to the communities in the area.
6-2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 

It is also important to note that while the particular mix of management and community related

issues is unique to BISC, the individual management challenges faced by BISC managers are

relatively common throughout the national park system. In some ways, BISC represents a

microcosm of contemporary management complexities. One example of this is Stiltsville. Inholdings are not uncommon in national parks, and where these in-holdings overlap with a

locally valued way of life, or are iconic of those lifeways, managers are presented with special

challenges. In the case of Stiltsville, the structures do not qualify as historic, nor, apparently,

do their uses qualify as types of ‘traditional use’ under National Park Service guidelines.

However, the structures are clearly symbolic of a portion of the south Florida experience, and

their existence harkens back to an earlier (if somewhat romanticized) era. While the structures

themselves are not used as a public resource, the park will be different, and some say

diminished, when these structures are gone. Park management and others with vested interests

still struggle with issues of public and private access to commonly held resources, as managers

do at other parks. The proximity to Miami and relatively extensive press coverage makes this

a relatively high profile issue.

BISC also represents different things to different communities, and even different experiences

of single communities. For example, to African Americans of the area, BISC embodies a history

of segregation, in the form of a historic black-only beach on the contemporary site of the

visitor’s center, and of economic and social triumph in a repressive society, in the form of the

Parson Jones homesite offshore on the Keys. That these two contemporaneous sites exist

within the park is a valuable story that remains to be further developed. That the sociocultural

differences parallel mainland and offshore resource contrasts is also an important part of the

story, and a theme that carries through to stories of other groups and their varied relations to

the park.

It is also clear that the demographic characteristics of the visitors to BISC do not reflect those

of the communities of the area. While not unexpected, given the fact that national parks in

general derive visitors from far and wide, the contrasts are still striking. Statistics compiled on

participants in BISC school outreach programs appear to mirror the demographics of the

communities at large, and these are very different from those characterizing persons seen at the

visitor center or elsewhere in the park, whether measured by visitor surveys or casual

observation. The dynamics of this situation are surely complex, and made all the more

complicated by the differential types of access required to visit different parts of the park.

BISC is also a maritime crossroads as well as a destination. The Intercoastal Waterway runs

through Biscayne Bay within the park, and Hawk Channel is a shipping lane that traverses BISC

on the outside of the Keys. While wreckers and salvors no longer ply its waters, individuals still

can and do make a living off of those in distress on the sea, but in modern times this normally

translates to tow companies assisting pleasure boaters. Another contemporary incarnation of

historic salvors may be seen in those who would privatize the excavation (or even widespread

exploration) of historically significant shipwrecks within the park. A hard-fought battle in a

number of parks (and elsewhere), the tension between those who believe that to leave a wreck

untouched is to abandon it to destruction by the ocean and those who believe that to salvage

it is to destroy its integrity and therefore its continuing value, is present in BISC as well.

Preservation of these wrecks requires continuing vigilance on the part of park personnel. The

common presence of U.S. Customs, U.S. Coast Guard, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
National Park Service 6-3

and other federal law enforcement officers in the area also attest to the fact that BISC also

remains a crossroads for the smuggling trade. As the backdoor to Miami and gateway to the

United States from the Bahamas, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, and beyond, a variety of

illegal trafficking occurs in the area. Although individual issues are shared with their fellow

officers elsewhere, BISC law enforcement personnel face a constellation of challenges not

normally seen in other national parks.

Perhaps one event that best focuses a number of the issues faced by BISC management is the

annual Columbus Day Regatta. While the centerpiece of this event is a sailing race, the event

has grown to include a huge floating party within the park that has become an event in and of

itself. To the attendees at the party, the race and, indeed, the park itself, would appear to be

very much a part of an unseen and unimportant background to the immediate socializing and

recreational opportunities afforded by the presence of large numbers of other boaters. As well

as being a constant law enforcement challenge, this particular event does not typify what most

people expect as a typical scene within the national park system. However, it is the logical

extension of what is seen in BISC on a smaller, more low-key scale on an ongoing basis.

BISC faces continuing challenges becasue of the changing sociocultural context of the

surrounding area. The population of some of the adjacent communities continues to increase

in average age, and with a changing population may come different resource use demands. The

park appears to have “dodged a bullet” with the dropping of a proposed reuse of Homestead

AFB as a major civilian airport. This reuse would have meant the intrusion of high noise levels

into the park on an ongoing basis, diminishing the solitude sought by many BISC users.

Continuing challenges are associated with agricultural production in the area and associated

water and runoff issues.

BISC represents many things to the different communities and populations in the area. It is a

little known park compared to the nearby Everglades National Park. When viewed from the

observation deck at the Dante Fascell Visitor Center at Convoy Point, the low-lying Keys within

the park are not as obvious or eye-catching as the downtown Miami skyline that appears to float

in the distance to the north (Figure 37). When on the water in the park and looking back

toward the mainland, the miles of coastal mangrove, vital to the health and well being of the

Biscayne Bay ecosystem, are not as obvious as the view-dominating Turkey Point (nuclear)

Power Plant on the southern edge of the park and the highest elevation feature in the County

located immediately behind (west) of the park at Black Point Marina–the enormous landfill

colloquially known as “Mount Trashmore.” Despite these reminders that the area adjacent to

the park is not pristine, BISC represents an area and a set of resources that is vitally important

to local communities in a variety of ways, perhaps made all the more so by adjacent uses. While

a number of relationships between communities and the park have become clear through this

study, it has raised a number of issues that could benefit from further clarification in subsequent

studies. These include:

• A traditional use study to focus on intergenerational continuity of resource use, particularly

by families who previously homesteaded in what is now the park, as well as those who make

their living in the park through commercial fishing. The “old families” of the area represent

an important continuity of community and resource relations that is not developed in the

existing literature. This study could also explore continuity of use issues related to
6-4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 

Stiltsville. While contact was attempted with nearly all Stiltsville structure users, more indepth work could serve to cast light on issues that are important not only to BISC but to

other units within the national park system as well. This could also help to inform the

ongoing advisory process as well.

• An ethnographic study of commercial and quasi-commercial fisheries within BISC. While

we have laid out a typology of fisheries, there is still much work to be done to illuminate ties

between particular groups and specific resources within different areas of the park. It is

clear that different fisheries in different areas are associated with different sociocultural

groups, but it is not clear how these activities fit in with other socioeconomic structures in

those communities, nor how they contribute to family economies within those

communities. Within the major categories of commercial fishing (by species complex),

sport charter fishing, guided fishing (primarily on the flats), and subsistence-type fishing,

there are clear patterns of differences by sociocultural and ethnic factors that remain to be

definitively explored and described. 

• Basic ethnographic research on use patterns in different areas in BISC. It is clear that uses

co-vary with resource distribution and access type, but systematic exploration of the ties to

particular communities and populations was not possible under this research. Visitor

surveys have been conducted and are a useful piece of the puzzle, but supplementary

ethnographic research could fill in a number of the gaps in understanding the relationship

between the park and the adjacent communities. 
1.0 Purpose and Need

 National Park Service 6-5

Graphics 0K034 Biscayne National Park\Figures\Fig X Photographs11 (DBrady) 5/5/03

Figure 37

The Miami Skyline as seen from Biscayne National Park (top) and

Turkey Point Power Plant looking south from Biscayne National Park Shoreline (bottom)
6-6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 
National Park Service 7 - 1 

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Chuck, Steve Jacob, and Suzanna Smith

2000 What Happened After the Net Ban? Institute of Food and Agricultural Services,

University of Florida.

Adams, J., T. Helmers, B. L. Lanzendorf, and R. Stewart

1998 Cultural Resources of Biscayne National Park: Annual Report for 1998. 

Adams, Jim

1996 The History of Stiltsville. Homestead, Florida: Biscayne National Park.

Ault, J., J. Serafy, D. DiResta, and J. Dandelski

1997 Impacts of Commercial Fishing on Key Habitats within Biscayne National Park. 

Annual Report on Cooperative Agreement No. CA-5250-6-9018. Miami, FL: 

RSMAS/MBF. October.

Ault, J. S., S. G. Smith, G. A. Meester, J. Luo, and J. A. Bohnsack

2001 Site Characterization for Biscayne National Park: Assessment of Fisheries

Resources and Habitats. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-468. 

Miami, FL: SEFSC/NMFS/NOAA.

Beacon Council

1999 Economic Report: A Quarterly Analysis of Greater Miami’s Business Climate,

Summer 1999. Miami. FL. Electronic document,

http://www.beaconcouncil.com/docs/pdf/.

2002a Miami in the Twenty-First Century. Miami Business Profile 2002-2003.

2002b Visitor Industry, Business Assistance Information, Business Assistance Reports,

Target Industries. Electronic document, http://www.beaconcouncil.com/.

Bettinger-Lopez, Caroline

2000 Cuban Jewish Journeys; Searching for Identity, Home, and History. Knoxville:

University of Tennessee Press.

Biscayne National Park (BISC)

2000a December 11, 2000 Media Release: $1 Million Settlement in Coral Reef

Grounding Case. Electronic document,

http://www.nps.gov/bisc/igloomoon/1282000mediarelease.htm.

2000b Digital Spatial Data Layers of Biscayne National Park for Geographic

Information Systems Software.

2002 June 4, 2002 Media Release: Consensus at Stiltsville. Electronic document,

http://www. nps.gov/bisc/stiltsville/stiltsvilleJune42002consensusrelease.htm.
7 - 2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Boating Research Center (BRC)

1991 Boat Use Patterns and Boat Traffic Study: Biscayne Bay, Dade County,

Florida. Miami, FL: DERM/BRC. 

2000 Registered Vessels in Miami-Dade County, by Length, Use, Propulsion, and

Fuel for 1997. Unpublished data.

Booth, William

1998 A White Migration North from Miami, Washington Post, November 9.

Borland, Katherine

n.d. Folklife of Miami’s Nicaraguan Communities. Historical Museum of Southern

Florida. Electronic document, http://www.historicalmuseum.org/folklife/folknica.htm.

Boswell, Thomas D, ed.

1991 South Florida: Winds of Change. Miami: Association of American

Geographers. 

Boswell, Thomas D., and James R. Curtis

1991 The Hispanization of Metropolitan Miami. In South Florida: Winds of

Change. Thomas D. Boswell, ed. Pp. 140-161. Miami: Association of

American Geographers.

Bruce, Annette

1996 Tellable Cracker Tales. Pineapple Press of Sarasota. 

Bucuvalas, Tina

2000 At the Borders of Culture: Florida Past and Present. Myths and Dreams:

Exploring the Cultural Legacies of Florida. Electronic document,

http://www.millenium-exhibit.org/ bucuvalas1.htm.

Bucuvalas, Tina, Peggy Bulger, and Stetson Kennedy

1994 South Florida Folklife. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

2000 Regional Accounts Data, State Annual Personal Income, Per Capita Personal

Income by State, 1990-2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. September. 

Electronic document, http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)

1999a Florida Estimates of Population Data Report, University of Florida. Electronic

document, http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/publications.
National Park Service 7 - 3 

1999b Florida Statistical Abstract Data Report, Warrington College of Business

Administration, University of Florida. Electronic document,

http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/publications.

Bushnell, Amy T. 

1996 Republic of Spaniards, Republic of Indians. In The New History of Florida. 

Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 62-77. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Buswell, James Oliver, III

1982 Florida Seminole Religious Ritual: Resistance and Change. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, St. Louis University (MO).

Canizares, Raul

1993 Cuban Santeria. Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books.

Capron, Louis

1953 The Medicine Bundles of the Florida Seminole and the Green Corn Dance. 

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 151:155-210. Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office. 

Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak

2000 Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological Investigations of the Brickell

Point Site (8DA12), Including the Miami Circle. The Florida Anthropologist,

Volume 53, Number 4. December.

Castro, Max J. 

1992 The Politics of Language in Miami. In Miami Now! Miami Immigration,

Ethnicity, and Social Change. G. Grennier and Alex Stepick, eds. Pp. 109-132. 

Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Clausen, C. S., H. K. Brocks, and A. B. Wesolowsky

1975 Florida Spring Confirmed as 10,000 Year Old Early Man Site: The Florida

Anthropologist, vol. 28, no. 3, pt. 2.

Cockrell, Wilburn A., and Larry Murphy

1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6(1):1-13.

Coker, William S., and S. R. Parker 

1996 The Second Spanish Period in the Two Floridas. In The New History of

Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 150-166. Gainesville: University of Florida

Press.

Colburn, David R., and Jane Landers, eds.

1995 The African American Heritage of Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida

Press.
7 - 4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Covington, James, W. 

1993 The Seminoles of Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Davis, Wade

1985 The Serpent and the Rainbow. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Degner, R., S. Moss, and D. Mulkey

1997 Economic Impact of Agriculture and Agribusiness in Dade County, Florida,

University of Florida, FAMRC Industry Report 97-1. August.

Demographia

2000 Florida Demographic Brief, Wendell Cox Consultancy, Belleville Il. Electronic

document, http://www.demographia.com.

Denham, James M., and Canter J. Brown, eds.

2000 Cracker Times and Pioneer Lives: The Florida Reminiscences of George

Gillett Keen and Sarah Pamela Williams. Columbia: University of South

Carolina Press.

Derr, Mark

1998 Some Kind of Paradise. New York. William Morrow and Company.

Diresta, D., B. Lockwood, and R. Curry

1995 Monitoring of the Recruitment, Growth and Mortality of Commercial

Sponges in Biscayne National Park: Final Report. Miami, FL: RMD/BNP. 

Dobyns, Henry F.

1983 Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in

Eastern North America. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Dunn, Marvin

1997 Black Miami in the Twentieth Century. Gainesville: University of Florida

Press.

Dunn, Marvin, and Alex Stepick

1992 Blacks in Miami. In Miami Now! Miami Immigration, Ethnicity, and Social

Change. G. Grennier and Alex Stepick, eds. Pp. 41-56. Gainesville: University

of Florida Press.

Fabel, Robin F. A. 

1996 British Rule in the Floridas. In The New History of Florida. Michael Gannon,

ed. Pp. 134-149. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
National Park Service 7 - 5 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

2001 Project Impact: Building a Disaster-Resistant Community, Miami-Dade

County, Florida. Electronic document,

http://www.fema.gov/impact/cities/im_fl04.htm.

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

2001a Florida Immigration Impact Statement, Immigration in Florida, Profile in

Numbers. Electronic document,

http://www.fairus.org/html/042flimpact.html.

2001b Miami-Dade County and Metropolitan Area Immigration Factsheet. 

Electronic document, http://www.fairus.org/html/msas/042flmia.htm.

Florida Anthropological Society

1997 Florida Archaeology Illustrated Overview. Electronic document,

http://www.cgcas.org/ itxt_fas.htm.

Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security (FDLES)

1997 Labor Market and Performance Information, ES 202, Division of Jobs and

Benefits.

2000 State and County Employment Statistics, Office of Labor Market Statistics,

February. 

Florida Department of State

2001 Miami Circle Planning Group Meeting Minutes. Electronic document,

http://dhr.dos.state. fl.us/brickellpoint/08132001_minutes.html.

Florida Marine Research Institute

2002 Dade County and Biscayne Bay Landings by Species, 1990-2001. Document

generated upon request. 

Florida Netlink

2001Florida State Facts and Figures. Electronic document,

http://www.floridanetlink.com/ floridafacts.htm. Florida Research and

Economic Database

2000a Area Profile for Miami-Dade County, Florida Agency for Workforce

Innovation. Electronic document, http://fred.labormarketinfo.com.

2000b Per Capita Income for Florida Counties, Florida Agency for Workforce

Innovation. Electronic document, http://fred.labormarketinfo.com.

Fradd, S. H., and T. D. Boswell

1996 Spanish as an Economic Resource in Metropolitan Miami. Bilingual Research

Journal 20:283-338.
7 - 6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Gannon, Michael, ed.

1996 The New History of Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Garbarino, Merwyn S.

1989 The Seminoles. Indians of North America Series. Frank W. Porter, gen. ed. 

New York: Chelsea House Publishers.

Garvin, Glenn

2000 Nicaraguans in U.S. Urged to Seize Amnesty. Miami Herald, March 2.

Goggin, John M.

1998 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press.

Goldstein, Brad, and Jeff Testerman

1998 In Seminole Gambling, A Few are Big Winners: Special Report. St. Petersburg

Times. Electronic document,

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/seminolegambling/dayone/main.html.

Gonzales-Pando, Miguel

1998 The Cuban-Americans. Westport Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Governors Commission for a Sustainable South Florida (GCSSF)

1995 Initial Report. October.

Greenlee, Robert 

1944 Medicine and Curing Practices of Modern Florida Seminoles. American

Anthropologist 46:317-328.

Grennier, Guillermo, and Alex Stepick, eds.

1992 Miami Now! Immigration, Ethnicity, and Social Change. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press.

Haase, Ronald W.

1992 Classic Cracker: Florida’s Wood-Frame Vernacular Architecture. Pineapple

Press. November.

Hann, John H. 

1996 The Missions of Spanish Florida. In The New History of Florida. Michael

Ganon, ed. Pp. 78-99. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Harper, D. E., J. A. Bohnsack, and B. R. Lockwood

2000 Recreational Fisheries in Biscayne National Park, Florida, 1976-91. Internal

Document. 
National Park Service 7 - 7 

Hodges, Alan, Effie Phillippakos, David Mulkey, Tom Spreen, and Ron Muraro

2001 Economic Impact of Florida’s Citrus Industry 1999-2000, University of

Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Food and Resource

Economics Department, Gainesville Florida. July.

Hultkrantz, Ake

1997 Shamanic Healing and Ritual Drama: Health and Medicine in Native North

American Religious Traditions. Crossroad.

Jahoda, Gloria

1976 Florida: A Bicentennial History. New York: Norton.

Johns, G. M., V. R. Leeworthy, F. W. Bell, and M. A. Bonn

2001 Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. Miami, FL: Hazen and

Sawyer/FSU/ NOAA.

Jones, Maxine D.

1996 The African American Experience in Twentieth Century Florida. In The New

History of Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 373-390. Gainesville: University

of Florida Press.

Kersey, Harry A.

1975 Pelts, Plumes, and Hides: White Traders Among the Seminole Indians, 1870-

1930. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

1987 The Seminole and Miccousukee Tribes: A Critical Bibliography. Indianapolis:

Indiana University Press.

Knight Ridder Company

2001 The Miami Herald, Knight Ridder Company Profiles.

Landers, Jane 

1996 Free and Slave. In The New History of Florida. Michael Ganon, ed. Pp. 167-

182. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Lauredo, S. C.

1998 Co-existence: Stiltsville. MA thesis. FIU: Miami, FL. 

Lawless, Robert

1992 Haiti’s Bad Press. Schenkman Books, Inc. 

Leynes, Jennifer Brown, and David Cullison

1998 Biscayne National Park Historic Resource Study. Atlanta: National Park

Service Southeast Region.
7 - 8 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Library of Congress

2000 Ethnic and Cultural Groups Recorded by the WPA in Florida, Florida Folklife

from the WPA Collections, American Folklife Center. July. Electronic

document, http://memory. loc.gov/ammem/flwpahtml/ffgroups.html.

Lockwood, B., and B. Perry

1997 Biscayne National Park: Annual Fisheries Report 1996. Homestead, FL: 

BNP/Division of Resources Management. 

1998 Biscayne National Park: Annual Fisheries Report 1997. Homestead, FL: 

BNP/Division of Resources Management.

Loiry, W.

1995 Florida World Links - Trade and Investment Opportunities with the Four

Dragons, Florida Trend Magazine. April.

Lutz, S. J.

1998 An Assessment of Unreported Boat Grounding Damage to Shallow-Water

Corals in the Florida Keys. Internship Report. Miami, FL: 

MAF/RSMAS/University of Miami. 

Lyon, Eugene

1996 Settlement and Survival. In The New History of Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. 

Pp. 40-61. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Mahon, John K., and Brent R. Weisman 

1996 Florida’s Seminole and Miccosukee Peoples. In The New History of Florida. 

Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 183-206. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Maingot, A. P. 

1992 Immigration from the Caribbean Basin. In Miami Now! Miami Immigration,

Ethnicity, and Social Change. G. Grennier and Alex Stepick, eds. Pp. 183-206. 

Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Studies (MISER)

1995 Population Statistics (Projections and Estimates). University of

Massachusetts.

McClellan, D. B.

1996 Aerial Surveys for Sea Turtles, Marine Mammals, and Vessel Activity along the

Southeast Florida Coast, 1992-1996. Miami, FL: DOC/NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC.

McWhiney, Grady

1988 Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South. Tuscaloosa: University of

Alabama Press.
National Park Service 7 - 9 

Merzer, Martin, with Elinor J. Brecher, Daniel de Vise, William Yardly, Tim Henderson, and

Gregg Fields

2002 After Andrew, Displaced Families Found Oasis in Broward. Miami Herald. 

August 21.

Metro Dade Planning Department

1995 Population Race and Ethnicity Estimates. Research Division.

Miami-Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning

2002 Population by Race and Haitian Ancestry, 2000, Miami-Dade County by

Municipality. Electronic document, http://www.co.miamidade.fl.us/planzone/Library/Census/2000_

Population_by_Race_and_Haitian_Ancestry.pdf.

Miami-Dade Parks

n.d. The Miami Circle. Electronic document, http://www.co.miamidade.fl.us/parks/natarch.htm.

Miami International Airport 

2001 Airport Statistics, Facts at a Glance, About Miami International Airport. 

Electronic document, http://www.miami-airport.com/html/home.html.

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

2002 Miccosukee Programs and Businesses, History. Electronic document,

http://www. miccosukee.com/enterprise.html.

Milanich, Jerald T. 

1996 Original Inhabitants. In The New History of Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. Pp.

16-39. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Missouri State Census Data Center

1990 Florida and Counties, 1990 Summary File 3 Extract Report: U.S. Counties.

Mohl, Raymond A.

1991 The Settlement of Blacks in South Florida. In South Florida: Winds of Change. 

Thomas D. Boswell, ed. Pp. 112-139. Miami: Association of American

Geographers.

Mohl, Raymond A., and George Pozzetta

1996 From Migration to Multiculturalism: A History of Florida Immigration. In The

New History of Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 391-417. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press.
7 - 1 0 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Mohl, Raymond A., and Gary Mormino

1996 The Big Change in the Sunshine State: A Social History of Modern Florida. In

The New History of Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 418-448. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press.

Mosley-Dozier, Bernette

1989 Haitians in America; The Double Minority. Electronic document,

http://www.yale.edu/ ynhti/curriculum/units/1989/1/89.01.08.x.html.

New Jersey Business Resource Center

2000 Median Household Income by State. New Jersey Commerce and Economic

Growth Commission, New Jersey Department of Commerce. Electronic

document, http://www. njbrc.org/income/medinc.html.

Owsley, Frank Lawrence

1949 Plain Folk of the Old South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Perez, Lisandro

1992 Cuban Miami. In Miami Now! Miami Immigration, Ethnicity, and Social

Change. G. Grennier and Alex Stepick, eds. Pp. 83-108. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press.

Port of Miami

2001 Port Overview, Miami Dade County. Electronic document,

http://www.metro-dade.com/ portofmiami/overview.htm.

Porter, Kenneth Wiggins, with Alcione M. Amos (ed.) and Thomas P. Senter (ed.)

1996 The Black Seminoles: History of a Freedom Loving People. University of

Florida Press. October.

Portes, Alejandro

1987 The Social Origins of the Cuban Enclave Economy of Miami. Sociological

Perspectives 30:383-397.

Portes, Alejandro, and Robert L. Bach

1985 Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro, and Alex Stepick

1993 City on the Edge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Proctor, Samuel

1996 Prelude to the New Florida, 1877-1919. In The New History of Florida. 

Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 266-286. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
National Park Service 7 - 1 1 

Rieff, David

1987 Going to Miami: Exiles, Tourists and Refugees in the New America. Boston:

Little Brown.

Rogers, William

1996 The Great Depression. In The New History of Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. 

Pp. 287-303. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Roth, Daniel Shoer

1999 Dade Attracts Hispanic Jews. Miami Herald. September 28.

Royal, W., and E. Clark

1960 Natural Preservation of Human Brain. Warm Mineral Springs, Florida. Amer.

Antiquity 26:285-287.

Rust, R.

1998 Quality Communities Committee: Labor Market Conditions, Bureau of Labor

Market and Performance Information, Division of Jobs and Benefits, Florida

Department of Labor and Employment Security. September.

Sargent, F. J., Timothy J. Leary, and David W. Crewz

1995 Scarring of Florida’s Seagrasses : Assessment and Management Options. St.

Petersburg, FL: Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine

Research Institute.

Schafer, Daniel

1996 United States Territory and State. In The New History of Florida. Michael

Gannon, ed. Pp. 207-230. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Sears, William H.

1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. William H.

Sears, with contributions by Elsie O’R. Sears and Karl T. Steinen. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press.

Seidenfeld, R.

1999 The Development of Shrimping Policy in Biscayne Bay. Unpublished class

paper for Ocean Policy, MAF/RSMAS/UM.

Seminole Tribe of Florida

2002 Indian Resistance and Removal, History- Where We Came From. Hollywood

Florida. Electronic document,

http://www.seminoletribe.com/history/indian_removal.shtml.
7 - 1 2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Shivlani, M. P., and D. O. Suman

2000 Dive Operator Use Patterns in the Designated No-Take Zones within the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Environmental Management

25(6):647-659.

Shivlani, M. P., and J. W. Milon

2000 Socio-cultural Effects of a Market-Based Fishery Management Program in the

Florida Keys. Coastal Management 28:133-147.

Simmons, Glen, and Laura Ogden

1998 Gladesmen: Gator Hunters, Moonshiners, and Skiffers (The Florida History

and Culture Series). Gainesville: University of Florida Press. June.

Simmons, Todd, and Margaret Littlejohn

2001 Biscayne National Park Visitors Study. Visitor Services Project Report,

National Park Service. February.

2002 Biscayne National Park: Visitor Survey, Spring 2001. Visitor Services Project,

Report 125. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/bisc/visitorsurvey.pdf.

Snow, Alice, and Susan Stans

2001 Healing Plants. Medicine of the Florida Seminole Indians. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press.

Soruco, Gonzalo

1996 Cubans and the Mass Media in South Florida. Gainesville: University of

Florida Press.

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, Working Group

1998 An Integrated Plan for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and

Sustainability: Success in the Making. Florida International University. April.

Spoehr, Alexander

1941 Camp, Clan, and Kin among the Cow Creek Seminole. Anthropological Series

Field Museum of Natural History 33:1-27.

Stack, John F., and Christopher Warren

1992 The Reform Tradition and Ethnic Politics: Metropolitan Miami Confronts the

1990s. In Miami Now! Miami Immigration, Ethnicity, and Social Change. 

G. Grennier and Alex Stepick, eds. Pp. 160-185. Gainesville: University of

Florida Press.

Starret, Ben

1997 Southeast Florida Metropolitan Area Briefing Paper, Florida Department of

Community Affairs, March.
National Park Service 7 - 1 3 

Stepick, Alex

1992 The Refugees Nobody Wants: Haitians in Miami. In Miami Now! Miami

Immigration, Ethnicity, and Social Change. G. Grennier and Alex Stepick, eds. 

Pp. 57-82. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

1998 Pride Against Prejudice: Haitians in the United States. Boston: Allyn and

Beacon.

Stirling, Gene

1970 Josie Billie, Seminole Doctor, Medicine Man and Baptist Preacher. Journal of

the Florida Medical Association 57:33-40.

Storter, Rob, Beth S. Briggs (ed), Peter Matthiessen

2000 Crackers in the Glade: Life and Times in the Old Everglades. University of

Georgia Press. May.

Strong, William

1991 The Southeast Florida Economy. In South Florida: Winds of Change. Pp. 70-

86. Thomas D. Boswell, ed. Miami: Association of American Geographers.

Sturtevant, William

1954a The Mikasuki Seminole: Medical Beliefs and Practices. Ph.D. dissertation,

Yale University, Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

1954b The Medicine Bundles and Busks of the Florida Seminoles. Florida

Anthropologist 7:31-70.

1960 A Seminole Medicine Maker. In In the Company of Man: Twenty Portraits by

Anthropologists. Pp. 505-532. J. Casagrande, ed. New York: Harper.

Tebeau, Charlton

1971 A History of Florida. Coral Gables. University of Florida Press.

The Beacon Council

2000 Miami-Dade County Economic and Research Information, Economic and

Demographic data. Electronic document, http://www.beaconcouncil.com.

Thomas, K.

2002 Graham Unveils Proposal to Study Miami Circle. Naples Daily News. 

Electronic document,

http://www.naplesnews.com/02/01/florida/d735467a.htm. January 29.
7 - 1 4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Tweed, Thomas

1997 Our Lady of the Exile: Diasporic Religion at a Cuban Catholic Shrine in Miami. 

New York: Oxford University Press.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

1990 Florida Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 1990, 1990 Census of

Population and Housing.

1992 Demographic Profile, Dade County, Florida 1960-1990, pp. 23.

1994 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce.

2001a Florida and Counties, State and County QuickFacts. May.

2001b Florida, Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000, 2000 Census of

Population and Housing.

2001c Immigration and Florida: Census Bureau Data, Federation for American

Immigration Reform. January.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

2001a County-level Unemployment and Median Household Income, Florida ,

Economic Research Service. February.

2001b Florida Fact Sheet, Economic Research Service. May.

U.S. Department of Commerce

1984 Census of Agriculture. Bureau of the Census.

1994 Census of Agriculture. Bureau of the Census.

2000 Regional Economic Information System CD-Rom, Bureau of Economic

Analysis. June.

Viglucci, Andres

1999 Cuban Numbers Growing, Haitian Decline. Miami Herald. May 30.

2001 Census Shows Increase in Hispanics Diversity. Miami Herald. May 10.

Villamil, T.

2000 Miami-Dade County’s Economic Forecast, The Economic Roundtable and The

Beacon Council. December.

West, Patsy

1999 The Enduring Seminole: From Alligator Wrestling to Ecotourism. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press. 
National Park Service 7 - 1 5 

Wickman, Patricia Riles

1999 The Tree That Bends: Discourse, Power, and the Survival of the Maskókî

People. University of Alabama Press.

Williams, R.

1997 Highlights of the Stone Crab Effort Management Program. Prepared for the

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (internal document). 

Wright, J. Leitch, Jr.

1986 Creeks and Seminoles: Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscolge People. 

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Zephir, Flores

1996 Haitian Immigrants in Black America. Westport Connecticut: Bergen Garvey.
7 - 1 6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment
APPENDIX 1

METHODS AND RESEARCH APPROACH

National Park Service A p p e n d i x 1 - 1 

APPENDIX 1

METHODS AND RESEARCH APPROACH

This document is presented as a reference work for Biscayne National Park (BISC) managers

and staff. It is intended as an overview of the connections of surrounding communities with

BISC. This overview combines a review of existing literature with limited ethnographic

interviewing to describe the uses and sociocultural context of BISC resources. The complete

development of the multicultural background and usage of BISC resources by diverse groups,

while desirable, was assessed as beyond the scope of available project resources. Consequently,

a research strategy was used to develop sufficient background and ethnographic information

for a general overview of both the multi-cultural environment of Miami-Dade County and a

preliminary assessment of cultural groups within communities surrounding BISC. This work

should be considered a starting point for BISC managers and staff to assess the social and

cultural characteristics of surrounding communities and their connections with BISC resources.

The remainder of this section discusses three issues:

1. The research strategy that informed the decisions about how to achieve an overview

within available resources.

2. The choices for examination of the existing literature about BISC’s sociocultural context

and the use of its resources.

3. The implementation of ethnographic data collection, including sampling strategies and

interview methods.

RESEARCH STRATEGY

The questions guiding the implementation of this study are: “What communities or groups are

associated with the park?” “Who is using the park now?” “Are there any traditionally associated peoples?” “How are they using the park?” and, “How does the park fit into the lives of

mem bers of surrounding communities?” Using both “top down” and “bottom up” approaches,

literature review and primary data collection methods were combined to address these quesions. The “top down” approach begins with a broad ethnographic treatment of the MiamiDade County area, while the “bottom up” approach identifies particular uses and users of the

park and follows the leads generated by those uses/users to particular groups, communities, and

cultures associated with the park. The combination of the two approaches resulted in the

connection of some users with communities and a description of the sociocultural context of

BISC. During the initial year of this project, work focused on the “bottom up” approach.

Literature regarding the uses and sociocultural context of the park was examined. The work

also included a limited number of ethnographic interviews designed to understand the range

of uses and the groups, communities, and cultures associated with those uses. The “top down”

approach, that is, the ethnographic characterization and consideration of the larger community

adjacent community context, was developed in more detail in the following year. 

The decision to begin with the bottom-up approach resulted from several considerations. First,

the Miami-Dade County area encompasses a large, sprawling, cosmopolitan metropolis. It is
A p p e n d i x 1 - 2 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

home to a large range of communities, groups, and cultures. Without some basic understanding

of groups likely to be associated with park, the ethnographic effort could be diffuse and the

resources too limited to develop usable information about community associations with BISC.

Second, given the composition of the project team, a decision was made to maximize the

resources available from the Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science

(RSMAS)/University of Miami component early in the study process. This would both involve

those team members in the ongoing research and produce some preliminary information for

park staff and managers early in the study process. This information would then be available

for other efforts such as revision of the General Management Plan and the Fishery Management

Plan. Third, this strategy would involve park staff at the earliest point in the process and ensure

that BISC’s manager’s needs were identified early.

EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING LITERATURE 

Developing the literature review for this work required making choices about allocating

resources between the literature about the uses and users of BISC’s marine resources and the

literature about the cultural groups in surrounding communities. A significant portion of BISC

is composed of water that is accessed by commercial and recreational users. The commercial

users are primarily fishermen who take shrimp, crab, and a variety of fin fish. Recreational users

include sailors, power boaters, cruisers of the Inter-Coastal Waterway, fishermen, divers,

beachcombers, treasurer hunters, and other recreationists who visit BISC’s shorelines and

waters. The literature about these types of users is primarily in academic publications and in

non-published reports for government agencies. The cultural groups within the environs of the

BISC are extensive and the literature regarding those groups is dispersed in local museum

archives, academic books and journals, theses, dissertations, newspapers, magazines,

unpublished reports, films, and other media. Examining the existing literature regarding the

use of BISC’s marine resources and the cultural groups in surrounding communities thus

presented a decision about emphasis and depth of coverage. Examination of the literature

about the uses of BISC’s marine resources is emphasized using a “bottom-up” view that

understanding uses and users would point to connections with surrounding communities. A

majority of the available resources (264 of the total 336 hours) for the literature review were

allocated to this task. The remaining seventy-two hours (about 21 percent) were allocated for

an examination of ethnographic literature. This emphasis on existing uses reveals the

connections of users with BISC resources, a key piece of information that can contribute to

understanding the social identities of users and their connections to surrounding communities.

The discussion of the literature is presented in two separate chapters, one for a review of

“existing uses” and another about BISC’s sociocultural context. The later chapter is, as noted

previously, a more limited discussion using the “top down” strategy to describe the

sociocultural characteristics of cultural groups in nearby communities. This discussion is

limited because resources were insufficient to develop the depth and breadth of potentially

available information. In fact, a thorough examination of the Miami-Dade County sociocultural

context is a substantial task: this is one of the world’s most diverse and complex multicultural

environments, including a mix of Native Americans, Europeans, Caribbean Islanders, and

various peoples from Central and South America and other regions of the world. Developing

the existing literature about the history, culture, and social characteristics for any one of these

groups would require a thorough search of museum archives, books, journals, theses,
National Park Service A p p e n d i x 1 - 3 

dissertations, scholarly notes, and other unpublished documents. The completion of a

thorough review for all the major groups within surrounding communities was evaluated as

beyond what could be accomplished for this work.

The focus of this assessment is on a few prominent cultural groups in surrounding communities

that express the diversity of the multicultural environment of the region. These groups are:

Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, African Americans, Native Americans, and Crackers. There are

many other possible cultural groups to consider: Eastern Europeans; Russians; Canadians;

Jews; Mexicans; Bahamians; Puerto Ricans; “snow-birds,” who are seasonal residents from

primarily northern-areas of the United States and Canada; and a host of others. The focus

selected is intended to illustrate a range of social and cultural issues for groups of long standing

and those who are new immigrants to Miami-Dade County. These groups are also well

represented in the available literature about the folk-life, sociology, and anthropology of

surrounding communities. The readily available sources regarding these groups also often

compile substantial amounts of previously published findings, thereby making a review of the

sociocultural characteristics regarding these groups relatively efficient. 

For each of the selected groups, information is summarized about social history and

demography, social characteristics, and current sociocultural issues. While books regarding the

folk-life and anthropology of these groups were the primary sources, there was some limited

review of journals. However, the resources are not available to identify, acquire, and review

theses, dissertations, and other less readily available works. Nonetheless, this review provides

the reader with an introduction to the cultural groups discussed, and it should assist BISC

managers and staff in understanding some of the broad cultural themes within communities

surrounding the park.

USING ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEWS TO DEVELOP INFORMATION ABOUT BISC

USERS

The “bottom-up” strategy was also applied in identifying types of uses and user groups by

conducting ethnographic interviews. These interviews were intended to ascertain local

perspectives about types of uses of the park, assessments of resources, and management

concerns. During the first project year, two ethnographers conducted about 22 interviews, and

during the following year, another 19 interviews were completed by two ethnographers. Using

a modified ethnographic interview approach (described below), another 65 shoreline and canal

fishermen were also interviewed in the project’s second year. Approximately 25 person-days

were used to collect the ethnographic data and an additional 8 person-days were used for the

shoreline and canal fisherman interviews. The sampling approach and format for both the

ethnographic and fishermen interviews is described below.

Ethnographic Interviews: Sampling and Format

The knowledge of park staff was our starting point for identification of persons to include in

the ethnographic interviews. Park staff have first-hand knowledge of the range of users who

visit BISC and they are also a valuable source of information about user group issues. Staff in

different departments (including the Superintendent’s Office, Interpretation, Maintenance,

Law Enforcement, Planning, and Cultural Resources) were contacted to inquire about the types
A p p e n d i x 1 - 4 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

of users and the contact information for individuals who belong to groups that might have a

perspective on the park and its resources. A list of individuals and their associated groups were

compiled from these contacts. The groups identified included: recreational fishermen, boaters,

divers, tow boat operators, shoreline fishermen, commercial fishermen, and environmentalists.

Additionally, park staff also suggested there were others who do not necessarily represent a

“user group,” but they are “interested parties.” That is, these individuals have connections to

larger social and cultural groups in Miami-Dade County and its environs that express an

interest in park issues. These groups were identified as: the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes;

Blacks from surrounding communities; and “Old Family” Miami residents. 

Persons identified from contacts with BISC staff were categorized according to user groups

(fishermen, commercial fishermen, etc.). In almost all instances, there were multiple individuals

identified for each group. Telephone calls to arrange interviews were made to persons from

each group; within the group phone calls were placed until a person was reached who agreed

to an interview. The purpose of the project, how the individuals name was acquired, and the

general topics we wished to address in the interview were explained. A few persons preferred

a telephone interview, but the majority of these interviews were face-to-face. There were no

refusals to participate in these interviews. 

The format for these interviews was ethnographic; that is, within broad topic areas, individuals

were encouraged to describe their use of the park, management concerns, and other types of

connections with park resources. The ethnographer’s task in these types of interviews is to

encourage the person interviewed to describe from their point of view how they view the park

and use its resources. Interviews were recorded in field notes, and then became the basis for

the information presented in the description of users and interested parties in Chapter 5 of this

report.

Fisherman Interviews; Sampling, and Format

Early discussions with BISC staff suggested a special interest in the fishermen who fish the

canals and shorelines within park boundaries. Some suggested these were Hispanic

“subsistence” fishermen who supplemented their diet with fish of almost any size. Others

suggested these users might be primarily recreational fishermen who accessed park waters on

weekends from near-by communities. We responded to concerns among park staff by working

with the University of Miami to develop intercept interviews with weekend fishermen along the

canals and shoreline of the park. Interviews were conducted primarily on weekends because

park staff indicated this was the time of the most usage. This observation was supported by

casual visits by ethnographers to the canals near the park on weekends and weekdays. The sites

selected for these intercept interviews are: Black Point Marina, which includes the confluence

of Black Creek and Goulds Canals; Military Canal; Mowry Canal; Convoy Point near the

Visitor’s Center; and Homestead Bayfront Park. On consecutive Sundays during the month of

April 2002, these sites were visited by two Spanish-speaking interviewers. Every other person

encountered at each site was asked to participate in an interview about their fishing practices.

A total of 65 persons were interviewed; 22 at Black Point Marina; 22 at Convoy Point; and 21

at Mowry Canal. This targeted sampling was not intended to represent the full range of users,

but to explore the types of users who accessed these areas on Sundays in April. A substantially
National Park Service A p p e n d i x 1 - 5 

different approach would be required to collect a representative sample of users, including

consideration differences in season, days of the week, and time of day.

The content of the interviews addressed the reasons for visiting a particular site, knowledge of

the area, species targeted, perceived changes in the fishery, and if users knew that they were

fishing within BISC. Responses were recorded in written notes and then compiled by site as a

basis to describe shoreline and canal fishing in BISC. The responses were organized into tables

for frequency counts of responses to the topics addressed in the interviews. Given the nature

of the sample and the exploratory purpose of the interviews, there was no reason to conduct

any statistical analysis. The information presented in Chapter 5 is thus a descriptive summary

that can be a basis for additional work, but it is by no means a definitive description of the

extent of shoreline and canal fishing in BISC.
A p p e n d i x 1 - 6 Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment
APPENDIX 2

GIS MAPS

/(1

/(1

/(41

State Hwy 821

State Hwy 836

State Hwy826

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Atlantic

Ocean

Key

Biscayne

Biscayne National Park

Hallandale

Miramar

Aventura

Sunny Isles Beach

North Miami

Opa-locka

Hialeah

Hialeah Gardens

Miami

Beach

North Bay Village

Miami

Miami

 Springs

Sweetwater

Coral Gables

West Miami

South

 Miami

Homestead Florida

City

Unincorporated

County

Miami-Dade County Jurisdictions

Near Biscayne National Park

00034 Biscayne/GIS/jurisdictions.apr 12/22/00

Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

35000 0 35000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 35,000' (1:420,000)

6 0 6 Miles
S#

S# S#

S#

S# S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

S#

%[

%[

%[

%[

%[

%[

Hialeah

Opa-locka

Homestead

Sweetwater

North Miami

Miami Beach

South Miami

Coral Gables

Miami Springs

North Miami Beach

/(1

/(1

/(41

StateHwy821

StateHwy874

StateHwy836

StateHwy826

Key

Largo

Biscayne Bay

Florida City

Atlantic

Ocean

Key

Biscayne

MIAMI

Biscayne National Park

Everglades

National Park

5 0 5 Miles

National Wetlands Inventory

00034 Biscayne/GIS/national wetland.apr 12/22/00

Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

35000 0 35000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 35,000' (1:420,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

Roads

National Park

Highway

#S Cities

Biscayne National Park

LEGEND

National Wetlands Inventory

Estuarine,Intertidal

Estuarine,Subtidal

Lacustrine,Limnetic

Marine,Intertidal

Marine,Subtidal

Palustrine,Unconsol. Bottom

Palustrine,Aquatic Bed

Palustrine,Emergent

Palustrine,Forested

Palustrine,Scrub Shrub

Palustrine,Unconsol. Shore

Riverine,Lower Perennial

Upland
S#

S#

S#

S#

Homestead

South

Miami

Coral Gables

/(1

/(1

State Hwy 821

State Hwy 874

Florida City

Atlantic

Ocean

4 0 4 Miles

Bottom Community Types in the

Biscayne National Park Area

00034 Biscayne/GIS/bottom communities.apr 12/22/00

Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

20000 0 20000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 35,000' (1:420,000)

Roads

National Park

Highway

#S Cities

Biscayne National Park

LEGEND

Bottom Community Types

BARE BOTTOM

Carbonate Sand

Unknown Bottom

Unknown Bottom-Banks

Unknown Bottom-Dredged

Unknown Bottom-Restoration

CORAL

Individual Patch Reef

Aggregated Patch Reefs

Patch Reef with Halo

HARDBOTTOM

Soft Corals, Sponges, Algae

Hardbottom with Perceptible Segrass

Hardbottom with Perceptable Segrass-Banks

SEAGRASS

Dense Patches in Matrix of Hardbottom

Mod to Dense,Continuous Beds

Mod to Dense,Continuous Beds-Banks

Mod to Dense,Continuous Beds-Dredged

Mod to Dense,Continuous Beds-Restoration

Mod to Dense,Contin Beds w/Blowouts

Mod to Dense,Contin Beds w/Blowouts-Banks

Dominantly Sand/Mud w/ Small Scatt Seagrass Patches

Dominantly Sand/Mud w/Small Scattered Seagrass Patches-Banks

Dense Patches in Matrix of Sparse Seagrass

Dense Patches in Matrix of Sparse Seagrass Patches-Banks

Sparse,Continuous Beds

Sparse,Continuous Beds-Banks

OTHER

TIdal Creeks

Uninterpreted
S#

S#

South Miami

Coral Gables

/(1

wy821

StateHwy874

Biscayne Bay Atlantic

Ocean

4 0 4 Miles

Bathymetry

00034 Biscayne/GIS/bathymetry.apr 12/22/00

Biscayne National Park Ethnographic Overview

Sources: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Biscayne National Park

20000 0 20000 Feet

Scale: 1" = 20,000' (1:240,000)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

Roads

National Park

Highway

#S Cities

Biscayne National Park

Feet Below Sea Level

LEGEND

0 to 3 ft

3 to 6 ft

6 to 12 ft

12 to 18 ft

18 to 30 ft
As the nation’s principal conservation agency,

the Department of the Interior has

responsibility for most of our nationally owned

public lands and natural resources. This

includes fostering sound use of our land and

water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife,

and biological diversity; preserving the

environmental and cultural values of our

national parks and historical places; and

providing for the enjoyment of life through

outdoor recreation. The department assesses

our energy and mineral resources and works to

ensure that their development is in the best

interests of all our people by encouraging

stewardship and citizen participation in their

care. The department also has a major

responsibility for American Indian reservation

communities and for people who live in island

territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-290 October 2006

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Biscayne National Park

9700 SW 328 Street

Homestead, Florida 33033

www.nps.gov/bisc

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA T M