THE GREAT RED SNAPPER COUNT: NO SILVER BULLET

 

Last Thursday, I wrote about one of the longest continuing sagas in recreational fisheries management, the continued whining of private boat fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico, who have been overfishing red snapper for at least the last couple of decades, and get upset every time regulators tell them to stop.

As I noted last week, they’ve even fallen so low that they’re describing federal fisheries managers’ efforts to end overfishing as some sort of “gamesmanship,” rather than responsible fisheries management, as if federal managers scored some sort of win if they unreasonably restricted recreational landings. 

It’s a ridiculous position for anyone who aspires to be a player in the fisheries debate to take, for anyone who has been a part of the process for even a little while should realize that if federal managers were seeking easy "wins," they wouldn't work so hard to calculate the true level of landings; instead, they could merely take the data at face value and declare that all was well.  It’s only when managers do their jobs right, engage in rigorous scientific inquiry, and limit harvest to sustainable levels, that they get criticized by fishermen, and become the target of political efforts that make it harder for them to do their jobs. 

Thus, if there’s any sort of “gamesmanship” going on, it’s being conducted by the recreational fishing industry and the “anglers’ rights” groups that presume to speak for all recreational fishermen, who are consistently embarking on political maneuvers that, they hopw, will allow them to do an end run around science-based management measures designed to maintain the long-term sustainability of the red snapper fishery.

This time, such recreational organizations, in response to managers’ efforts to end overfishing, are betting on a new political gambit.  They have convinced fourteen members of Congress (half of whom have recently received donations from either the Center for Sportfishing Policy’s or American Sportfishing Association’s political action committees) to send a letter to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, asking him to halt any action to harmonize state and federal harvest estimates, and constrain recreational red snapper landings as a result of such combined estimates, until something called the "Great Red Snapper Count" has been completed.

According to that letter

“one of the most disputed questions in this process—stock abundance—is due to be answered very soon by the Great Red Snapper Count, an independent survey of absolute red snapper numbers by more then a dozen marine science institutions around the Gulf Coast.  Congress authorized the Great Red Snapper Count due to an overriding lack of confidence in federal methods and data.  It is premature to raise the issue of calibrating state data to federal data before the independent results of the Great Red Snapper Count are known, verified, and utilized in an interim assessment run.  Indeed, those results may very well indicate that far more profound changes to the federal fishery management system are warranted.”

The Great Red Snapper Count appears to be an impressive bit of research, that will see a number to top-notch fisheries scientists employ cutting-edge research techniques to collaborate on a project that should provide a better idea of the number of red snapper present off the U.S. Gulf Coast.

But to allow overfishing to continue, in the hope that the results of such research will justify such action, is unwise.  The Great Red Snapper Count should provide valuable data, but might not result in meaningful changes to current management measures.

That truth is reflected in the far more moderate languate that fisheries professionals involved in the research use to describe their project.  Texas A & M University’s Harte Research Center for Gulf of Mexico studies puts things in a more realistic perspective when it says

“The trends in fishing activity over the past 150 years have led to a depleted [Gulf red snapper] stock, which is now under a rebuilding plan.  As the stock continues to show signs of recovery, fishermen are seeing more (and larger) red snapper in the population; however, the spawning potential of the population (the number of eggs produced by reproductively active females) is still lower than the rebuilding target.  The conundrum caused by a population that is rapidly rebuilding, but has not yet met its rebuilding target (the biomass needed for long-term sustainable yield), has led to discontent among some user groups…

“The project…aims to estimate the population of red snapper in the U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico.  This evaluation will be conducted separately from the assessment process employed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council through the SEDAR process…

“The Great Red Snapper Count will provide an independent estimate (separate from the stock assessment-derived estimate) of red snapper abundance in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.  Results from this study will be compared with stock assessment results to examine what accounts for any differences observed.  This project represents a unique opportunity to bolster the stock-assessment derived estimate of red snapper abundance in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, with the goal of ensuring the most robust management possible for this iconic fish species.”   

Another institution involved in the project, the Mississippi State University Extension, states that

“the Great Red Snapper Count will provide new insight into the Gulf of Mexico red snapper population, while also helping to calibrate the current stock assessment.  Ultimately, this will lead to reduced stock assessment uncertainty…”

It’s important to note that neither academic institution is suggesting that the Great Red Snapper Count will revolutionize Gulf red snapper management.  Neither is predicting that the study will allow significantly higher red snapper landings or significantly relaxed red snapper regulations, although MSU did predict that the project would lead to

“increased revenue to coastal communities, and maximum fishery access for stakeholders.”

But in reading that statement, it’s important to remember that “maximum fishery access” is a far different thing than “significantly more fishery access.”  It’s possible, although probably unlikely, that “maximum” fishery access still means somewhat less access that anglers enjoyed in 2019 and 2020.

Remember that the sole purpose of the Great Red Snapper Count is, as its name suggests, merely to count Gulf red snapper, and hopefully come up with a more accurate estimate of how many there are.

And remember that, even if the project reveals that the Gulf red snapper population is much bigger than previously believed, that the annual catch limit will not necessarily spike, and the recreational regulations may not be relaxed, as a result.

That’s because absolute abundance—what the Great Red Snapper Count intends to determine—is only one factor that biologists consider when assessing the health of a fish stock.  Such abundance, unless considered in context with other relevant factors, is pretty much meaningless.

That statement would probably surprise many stakeholders, who assume that, if the Great Red Snapper Count finds that the population is significantly larger than previously believed, then less restrictive regulations can be put in place.

But that’s not necessarily true.

Remember that the Harte Research Center said that the project’s results would be used to “bolster” the stock assessment, a statement similar to that of Mississippi State, which talked about using such results to “calibrate” the assessment.  So no one should expect big changes to occur immediately after the data has been compiled and analyzed, and the likely peer review is done.

Science doesn’t work that way.

Instead, the results of the Great Red Snapper Count will be integrated into the stock assessment.  It will be considered along with all of the other data that has been compiled to date, so that the stock assessment can be updated with the best science available. 

In concept—although a lot of people won’t be happy to hear this—the process won’t be much different from calibrating the states’ catch, landings, and efforts estimates with the estimates produced by federal managers—the very thing that has triggered the current anglers’ rights backlash—or from calibrating the results from the Marine Recreational Information Program’s new Fishing Effort Survey with results from the old Coastal Households Telephone Survey, a process that revealed that red snapper anglers were landing far more snapper than previously believed.

And we all know that those two exercises didn’t turn out like red snapper anglers planned.

Let’s assume that the Great Red Snapper Count reveals a population larger than that calculated in the stock assessment.  What could happen next?

As I mentioned above, scientists won’t immediately assume that the larger population means that the stock is recovered.  Instead, they would try, as the Harte Research Center said, “to examine what accounts for any differences observed.”

If the population proves to be bigger than previously believed, because earlier sampling efforts had, perhaps, missed a lot of red snapper habitat, or underestimated the density of fish around the habitat that was sampled, it is reasonable to believe that the population has always been underestimated. 

It would have been underestimated back in the 1990s, when the population hit all-time lows, and the size of the unfished stock probably would have been underestimated, too.

If that is the case, then the biomass of mature female red snapper needed to achieve the spawning potential target of 26 percent might be quite a bit larger than previously believed, and the stock may still have a lot of rebuilding to do. 

Under such a scenario, regulations might not be relaxed as much as some people hope.

There is also the question of the fish’s average age.  Female red snapper become far more fecund as they grow older.  As noted in a blog published by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,

“The health of the red snapper stock is not based only on the number of fish or biomass (weight) of red snapper in the Gulf.  On the surface it may seem to be the practical way to make that judgment but, it’s really not the best indication of a fish stock’s sustainability, or ability to reproduce for years to come.  The red snapper stock is measured in terms of egg production, known as spawning potential.  Larger, older fish produce many more eggs than smaller, younger fish, so counting egg production to predict the health and sustainability of the stock is more accurate than counting numbers of fish.

“…Red snapper batch fecundity (the number of eggs in millions produced by each fish during a spawn) changes as the fish get older…the number of eggs produced by a red snapper really takes off at about 8 years.

“To put this spawning ability into perspective:  One 24-inch female red snapper (about a 8 year old fish) produces as many eggs as 212 17-inch females (about 5 years old).”

So the Great Red Snapper Count can end up counting a lot of red snapper, a lot more than biologists had thought were out there.  But if they don't have the right age mix, all of the red snapper counted might fall well short of producing the spawning potential of a rebuilt stock.

The bottom line is that red snapper management presents a complex puzzle.  Absolute abundance is only one piece.  The Great Red Snapper Count is not some sort of silver bullet that will pull the whole puzzle together and make the picture clear.

There is no question that the Great Red Snapper Count is an impressive effort, that should make a significant contribution to what scientists know about Gulf red snapper.  But, in the end, it’s impossible to predict what the results from such data will be until the experts crunch the numbers and reveal their answers.

Maybe we’ll find that the stock is fully rebuilt.  Maybe it’s close, and maybe it still has a long way to go.  The numbers will ultimately decide. 

But only two things can be predicted with certainty. 

If the Great Red Snapper Count finds that there are more snapper in the Gulf than the stock assessment predicted, opponents of federal fisheries management won’t wait for the scientists to figure out what that means.  Instead, they’ll spin that one bit of data to argue that, as suggested in the congressional letter, “far more profound changes to the federal fishery management system are warranted.”  And you can bet that those “profound changes” would all lead to a bigger recreational harvest, and little if any angler accountability.

And if the Great Red Snapper Count ultimately results in scientists tweaking the stock assessment, but keeping relatively restrictive management measures in place, we’ll see the same critics make a sudden u-turn, call the program they once praised “bad science,” and find a new political game to play.

Because when the only thing that you want to do is kill more fish and escape all accountability for your actions, those are about the only options you have.