NMFS SEEKS TO SHARPLY INCREASE SOUTH ATLANTIC RED SNAPPER LANDINGS

 

On January 14, the National Marine Fisheries Service released a proposed rule that, if adopted in its current form, would increase the annual recreational red snapper catch limit in the South Atlantic from 29,656 to 85,000 fish, nearly tripling what it is today, while instituting a comparable increase in the commercial catch limit, raising it from 124,815 to 346,000 pounds.

The same proposed rule, if adopted, is expected to reduce dead discards of red snapper—which represent the primary source of all red snapper fishing mortality in the South Atlantic—by at least 24 percent.

The tradeoff for those benefits is the implementation of a time and area closure, which NMFS euphemistically calls the “Snapper-Grouper Discard Reduction Season,” that would shut down all federal waters between Cape Canaveral, Florida and the Florida/Georgia border to recreational fishermen who seek to fish for, harvest, or possess any species belonging to the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery management unit, a complex that includes not only snapper and grouper, but some other reef fish species such as black sea bass, amberjack, and hogfish, for the months of December, January, and February.

Last September, I wrote a piece for the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which explained how recreational bycatch of red snapper in the South Atlantic, and the resulting dead discards, have led to extremely restrictive management measures being imposed on both the recreational and commercial fisheries.  The same piece notes how the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has refused to take action to reduce such dead discards, how NMFS has failed to step in to end the resulting recreationally-driven overfishing in the red snapper fishery, and how members of the commercial fishing industry ultimately sued NMFS and convinced the agency to enter into a settlement agreement, in which the agency agreed to adopt regulations to rein in the destructive recreational bycatch no later than June 6, 2025.

The proposed rule represents NMFS initial efforts to abide by the terms of its agreement.  In its explanation of the proposed management measures, the agency noted that

“This action is intended to end and prevent overfishing of red snapper while reducing dead discards and providing additional fishing opportunities…

“In the past 2 years, NMFS has been sued three times for the continued overfishing of South Atlantic red snapper.  On August 22, 2024, a Federal District Court approved a settlement agreement between NMFS and the plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits [which requires that a final rule ending such overfishing be published in the Federal Register on or before June 6, 2025]…

“Most of the red snapper fishing mortality is attributed to dead discards in the recreational sector…Recreational fishermen discard red snapper recreational open fishing season and during the closed season when fishers are targeting snapper-grouper species that co-occur with red snapper…approximately 98 percent of all red snapper discard mortalities during 2021-2023 were from the recreational sector.  The current level of discards is resulting in less younger fish, which are more abundant, surviving to the older ages necessary to sustain the population in the long term, particularly if recruitment decreases back to more historical levels.  Additionally, the high level of mortality from discards is reducing and limiting the amount of landed catch.”

It seems like a reasonable argument for the proposed regulations, and even though a lot of folks in northern Florida might not appreciate being singled out for a closed snapper-grouper season, no one has yet come up with a better approach to end overfishing and reduce discard mortality. 

That seems particularly true when once considers that the recreational fishing season for the most important grouper species is already closed in January and February, meaning that the proposed regulation only adds December to the closed grouper season; however, the proposed rule would create a new three-month closure for amberjack, tilefish, and some deep-water snappers, which can currently be caught during that time.

But, reasonable or not, anglers and the angling industry want nothing to do with the proposed regulation.

Some of that resistance comes from anglers choosing not to believe the science, which suggests that the stock is currently on a path to successful rebuilding, but could easily be thrown off that path should recruitment of new fish into the population, which has recently been atypically high, declines to more normal levels.  As noted in an article recently published on the Outdoor Life website,

“anglers say those [red snapper] populations are doing just fine, and that the Feds are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.”

But those angler attitudes are being fed by industry and anglers’ rights organizations that are not presenting a complete nor an entirely honest picture of what NMFS is trying to accomplish, but who are nonetheless being given a lot of free ink by friends in the angling press.

For example, an article in the Daytona Beach News-Press was titled

“NOAA proposes (threatens?) annual 3-month ban on snapper-grouper hookups,”

a heading that would appear intended to predispose readers against the proposed regulations.  But while that article dwells on the downside of the proposed rule—the seasonal closure of the snapper-grouper fishery off northern Florida—it is reasonably honest compared to some of the statements being released by various organizations.

For example, the Outdoor Life article says that

“the American Sportfishing Association points out that the three-month closure would affect all hook-and-line fishing, including trolling,”

but that’s not true.  The proposed regulations would not impact all hook-and-line fishing, but only fishing for species listed as part of the snapper-grouper complex.  Hook-and-line fishing, including trolling, for other species would not be affected.

But don’t take my word for it.  Look at the text of the proposed regulation.  It clearly states

“The discard reduction season…is an area closed to the recreational sector for the harvest of South Atlantic snapper-grouper species by hook-and-line fishing gear (including trolling gear) from January 1 through the end of February and from December 1 through December 31, annually.  The recreational bag limit using hook-and-line fishing gear to harvest South Atlantic snapper-grouper within the discard reduction season closed area…is zero.  During the applicable seasonal closure, no person may harvest or possess any snapper-grouper species in or from the discard reduction season closed area within the South Atlantic EEZ that were recreationally harvested by hook-and-line fishing gear (including trolling gear)…  [emphasis added]”

There’s no mention of sailfish or wahoo, of dolphin or mackerel, or of any other fish at all except those managed as part of the South Atlantic Council’s snapper-grouper management plan, and nothing at all to suggest that “all hook-and-line fishing” would be impacted, as the American Sportfishing Association suggests. 

Thus, the ASA’s comments seem to have unnecessarily alarmed people like north Florida charter boat captain Scott Housel, who was quoted in the Daytona Beach News-Press article as saying

“I don’t understand why they wouldn’t allow trolling during a bottom-fishing closure.  I still have to read all the proposals, but it will really hurt the ‘for-hire’ captains during those months.  We still have bills to pay.”

It would be unfortunate if the American Sportfishing Association’s comments caused captains such as Capt. Housel to oppose the proposed regulations would, based on the false impression that such regulations wouldtsomehow, prevent him for trolling for species that aren’t included in the snapper-grouper management plan.

But then, the American Sportfishing Association is the biggest trade association representing the recreational fishing industry, and the proposed time and area closure would undoubtedly cause some industry members to lose a bit of income, something the ASA acknowledged drove its opposition to the proposed rule.  Martha Guyas, ASA’s regional policy director for the South Atlantic, stated that

“The ASA is deeply disappointed to see NOAA Fisheries propose this drastic action, which may cause irreparable economic damage to the coastal communities and businesses that rely on recreational fishing, as well as recreational fishing manufacturers and suppliers across the country.”

While it would have been nice to see ASA to take the long view, and consider how a fully rebuilt red snapper fishery—perhaps one that even rebuilds ahead of schedule—might benefit the Association’s members, a trade association is, after all, about increasing trade, the ASA’s somewhat breathless resistance to any proposal that might impair a few members’ short-term cash flow is at least somewhat understandable.

Less understandable, and far less forgivable, were the comments made by the Coastal Conservation Association which, according to Outdoor Life, said

“the proposal ’drops [a] solution in search of a problem’ and is proof that the federal management system is broken,”

for blaming the "federal management system"—which presumably means NMFS—for the current effort to reduce recreational red snapper discards, without mentioning that the agency was compelled to do so by a settlement in a lawsuit that it otherwise was just about certain to lose, is in my view nothing short of dishonest and intentionally misleading. 

Anglers are killing far more red snapper as bycatch than they are landing and taking home, and one would think that any group that labels itself a “Conservation Association” would like to reduce such waste of an important natural resource.

Of course, it has been a very long time since the Coastal Conservation Association, at least at the national level, has had much to do with conservation.  Today, it seems to have fully transformed itself into an “anglers rights” organization that seeks to do little besides opposing federal fisheries managers and seeking ways for their members to kill more fish; just about everyone concerned with fisheries management in the southeast has heard CCA's “the federal management system is broken” refrain for so long that, except for politicians receiving campaign contributions from the recreational fishing industry, it is largely ignored.

Yet those well-supported politicians remain a thorn in the side of fisheries managers.

Just three weeks ago, I predicted that, in the upcoming year,

“we can expect to see an activist, conservation-averse Congress shutting down important conservation initiatives [and] interfering in the work of professional fisheries managers,”

and that prediction has certainly come true in the case of South Atlantic red snapper.

On January 22, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) issued a press release that read, in part,

“Senator Rick Scott joined Congressmen John Rutherford and Darren Soto to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral Red Snapper Act to stop the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from unilaterally closing the Red Snapper fishery in the South Atlantic until a full South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count study is complete.  A recreational fishing closure would be devastating for coastal economies in the South Atlantic with widespread impacts on charter captains, anglers, and local businesses.”

Not surprisingly, the press release also notes that

“The Red Snapper Act is also endorsed by the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), the Center for Sportfishing Policy (CSP), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).”

It’s not particularly clear what the bill’s sponsors are attempting to achieve, other than preventing professional fisheries managers from doing their jobs.  The “Great Red Snapper Count” concept originated in the Gulf of Mexico, where that same coterie of industry advocates and anglers’ rights groups managed to convince their favored legislators to fund such a study there; although it did provide some surprising new information on red snapper distribution, it ultimately had little impact on management decisions.  In fact, independent scientists questioned whether the Gulf’s Great Red Snapper Count should be incorporated into the population model used in Gulf red snapper stock assessments.

The South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count could easily meet the same fate. 

While it may—or may not—provide significant new information about South Atlantic red snapper, the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count’s usefulness as anything more than a public relations tool for the recreational fishing industry has yet to be demonstrated.  Even now, with the Count not yet completed, biologists seem to believe that they have a good handle on red snapper science; the proposed regulations would set the Acceptable Biological Catch for South Atlantic red snapper only eight percent below the overfishing limit, with that small difference constituting a buffer accounting for any scientific uncertainty.

Thus, by any objective measure, the regulations recently proposed by NMFS seem to represent a rational solution to the problem of recreational red snapper bycatch in the South Atlantic.

There may be better solutions out there, but so far the groups that oppose the proposed rule have not proposed them; instead, they have done nothing more than impede any progress toward resolving the issue.  The angling industry and related organizations have not yet even owned up to the problem posed by recreational bycatch, much less propose their own solution to address the issue, other than to demand that, instead of killing fish and then returning those fish to the water, that they instead be allowed to kill more fish and take them home.

So long as those organizations provide no constructive input to the management process, but choose to merely cast stones at those trying to conserve and rebuild the South Atlantic red snapper stock, the proposed regulation, with its increased landings and reduced recreational discards, is probably the best solution that we’re going to see.