ROUND TWO: SOUTH ATLANTIC RED SNAPPER EFPS

 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has just announced that it is again considering applications for exempted fishing permits that will allow anglers in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina to land red snapper over a longer period—in this case, 31 days, which might later be extended, depending upon how many fish are landed during the initial season—than is permissible under the current fishery management plan.

The first collaboration between the agency and the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina on recreational red snapper EFPs saw exempted fishing permits issued early last May.  However, any fishing under such permits was enjoined by a federal court before it could occur, as the initially issued permits clearly violated multiple provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, and would have almost certainly led to gross overfishing of the South Atlantic red snapper resource.

The new permit applications attempt to address the issues raised in the court’s decision, in an effort to ensure that, if new exempted fishing permits are issued, they will survive any new court challenge.  This time around, North Carolina is not participating in the exempted fishing permit process, and has asked NMFS to set the 2026 red snapper season off the North Carolina coast.

In its request for comments on the new applications for exempted fishing permits, NMFS advises that

“The stated primary purposes for these EFPs are to improve data on recreational fishing effort, catch, and discards of red snapper in the South Atlantic, and to inform the development of a long-term state-led management strategy for the recreational harvest of red snapper.  Additional purposes for the EFPs include:  (1) evaluating mandatory electronic reporting programs for monitoring catch; (2) providing recreational fishermen on privately owned vessels (private vessels, private anglers) and the owners or operators of charter vessels or headboats (for-hire fishermen) increased fishing opportunities for red snapper; (3) quantifying angler participation and characterizing angler behavior; and (4) collecting related biological information from the fishery.  The percent standard error estimates for the recreational harvest of red snapper are high, indicating low precision and significant uncertainty that would benefit from improved data collection efforts and approaches.  Better data could reduce the uncertainty around the estimates of harvest and discards from the recreational sector.  These proposed EFPs aim to address these challenges by improving recreational catch estimation and reducing discards so fishing opportunities can increase.”

To achieve those goals, the three states submitting applications

“each requested exemptions to certain Federal regulations for the proposed projects in the South Atlantic.

“1.  50 CFR 622.181(c)(2) limits the harvest and possession of red snapper to the specified season, and applies these limitations to a federally permitted for-hire vessel in both state and Federal waters.

“2.  50 CFR 622.183(b)(5)(i) specifies when the recreational season will occur each year.

“3.  50 CFR 622.193(y)(2) specifies the annual catch limit and accountability measures applicable to the recreational harvest of red snapper."

NMFS must now decide whether those exemptions are appropriate to achieve the purposes of the requested permits.

The first time around, the process was a pure political exercise, with the recreational fishing and boating industry, and the various anglers’ rights groups that carry the industry’s water, using connections within the Republican Party and the Trump Administration to get what they wanted.  Facts were basically irrelevant to the process, with at least one of the states—Florida—ranting MAGA rhetoric about the need to “rein in bureaucracy [underlined and in bold type],” returning “the power of fisheries management and conservation to the states where it belongs [also in bold type, along with some underlining, too],” complaints of “a bureaucratic blockade at the behest of status-quo defending adversarial interests [yes, more schoolgirl-like emphasis added]” and “weaponization of NOAA under President Obama,” and a reference to “God-given rights to recreate, and enjoy, our natural resources,” although no scripture was ever cited to support the suggestion that overfishing had a divine imprimatur.

Trump himself (or, at least, someone acting in his name and stead) went onto Truth Social to celebrate the issuance of the EFPs, suggesting that the industry had friends very high up in the Administration, who were pulling the right strings and doing the expected favors to get the job done.  (Perhaps it even recruited a major contributor to MAGA Inc. or to the now-enjoined East Wing ballroom, and so had made the requisite payment for administration attention.)

The states were so certain that politics would carry the day that they pointedly defied—not ignored, or neglected to follow, but pointedly defied—a regulatory requirement that the

“application package must include…[t]he species (target and incidental) expected to be harvested under the EFP, [and] the amounts of such harvest necessary to conduct the exempted fishing.  [emphasis added]”

Such defiance is clearly apparent in a letter from Roger Young, the executive director of Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, in which Young dismisses the need for Florida to comply with federal regulations, writing

“[NOAA] asks for a number of fish to be harvested in the EFP.  And in conversations with NOAA leadership, it was suggested to ‘throw out a number’ for consideration.  The Florida EFP limits harvest by number of fishing days and other fishery management tools, e.g. bag and aggregate bag limits.  The results will inform future management and conservation of the fishery in the region.  The EFP is not predicated on a number of fish, and for NOAA to request a number—even an estimated number—is inappropriate and unnecessary.  The State of Florida uses similar approaches with state-managed fisheries with routine success in conservation outcomes.  NOAA’s request to guess at a number is inconsistent with scientific management standards at the FWC.  [emphasis in original]”

Florida (and the industry organizations that it was supporting) effectively told Lutnick, “F*** you.  We’re doing it our way.  We don’t need to follow your rules.  The fix is already in.”

And that apparently worked with Lutnick, because the EFPs were ultimately issued, but it didn’t do so well once the courts got involved.  In fact, Florida’s (and other states’) failure to play by the rules was one of the reasons that the EFPs issued in May were enjoined.

For while the fix might have been in at the administrative branch, the judicial branch still believed in the law, and required NMFS to comply.

So this time, Florida’s EFP application, which also sets the scene for the other two states, is a little more reserved.  And yes, they estimated the number of red snapper that will be killed if the EFPs are issued.

Although the Florida application is an extensive, multi-page document, it is largely dependent on the argument that the Florida State Reef Fish Survey, a state survey designed to complement and enhance the Federal Marine Recreational Information Program, including its Fishing Effort Survey, is a more precise survey than the Marine Recreational Information Program itself.  That argument is key, as Florida argues that

“MRIP-FES was not designed to collect data for rare-event species, like Atlantic red snapper, or for fisheries that have very short recreational fishing seasons.  Conversely, SRFS was designed to collect data at a more regional level on reef-associated species that are found in deep, offshore waters such as the Atlantic red snapper…SRFS yields more accurate catch, effort, and discard data for the South Atlantic red snapper stock as compared to MRIP-FES.  Specifically, the more precise SRFS estimates of Atlantic red snapper catch, effort, and discards are 4 times smaller, 1.2 times smaller, and 2.1 times smaller than the MRIP-FES, respectively.  [formatting omitted]”

Those lower estimates are important, because if they are accurate, they will create a pool of fish that Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina anglers might exploit, pursuant to the exempted fishing permits, without necessarily overfishing the red snapper stock.

Thus, Florida argued,

“the proportion of landings and releases were determined using MRIP data for each state from 1981 to 2024.  SRFS data (annual estimates of releases and landings) were calibrated to MRIP-FES data using previously certified methods to determine annual South Atlantic total estimates of releases and landings for the private recreational sector.  To determine a specific annual private recreational estimate of releases and landings for each individual South Atlantic state, the annual proportion estimates for each state were multiplied by the total annual South Atlantic releases (or landings) as estimated by MRIP and as estimated by calibrated-SRFS data.  Because SRFS was calibrated to MRIP, the estimates derived can be directly comparable, as they are in a ‘common currency.’

“…[C]alibrated SRFS data results in significantly fewer releases and landings throughout the year than MRIP-FES for all states.  Because SRFS higher precision than MRIP-FES for both releases and landings, SRFS data can be treated with greater confidence than MRIP-FES.  Next, a 3-year average (2021-2024) of releases and landings using MRIP-FES and SRFS data was directly compared to assess the magnitude of differences in estimates of releases and, therefore, dead discards, as well as landings between the two programs…A 25.7 percent discard mortality rate was applied to both MRIP-FES and SRFS release estimates to determine the average annual number of recreational dead discards in each state.  This discard mortality rate was recommended for use in the SEDAR 90 Data Workshop as a ‘general recreational fleet’ discard mortality rate.

“Ultimately, this comparison indicated that the average annual estimate of dead discards (2021-2024) from MRIP-FES is 586,194 fish compared to 272,623 fish estimated by SRFS.  Because MRIP-FES and SRFS are calibrated in this analysis, the 313,571-fish difference is not trivial.  The dead discard calculation determined by NMFS in the SEDAR 73 update used MRIP-FES data and not SRFS data.  This is the stock assessment that informed Secretarial Amendment 59, which established the current catch limits for Atlantic red snapper.  Presently, 93 percent (475,000 fish) of the red snapper annual catch limit (‘ACL’) (509,000 fish) are assumed to be dead discards and are removed from the catch limit before a single hook hits the water.  In Amendment 59, 97.4 percent of dead discards (463,033 fish) are attributed to the recreational sector.  However, the above analysis, which imputes other South Atlantic states to calibrated SRFS data, highlights an estimated average difference of more than 215 percent in the number of dead discards between MRIP-FES and SRFS in the South Atlantic in recent years…Viewing the SRFS data as the [best scientific information available] for Atlantic red snapper (rather than MRIP-FES), a significant portion of the 463,033 dead discards (as assumed under MRIP-FES data) could actually be accounted for as landings with no biological harm to the stock.

“…To ensure continued progress in rebuilding and to prevent overfishing, it is necessary to convert the current catch limits (and dead discard estimates) from their current data currency (MRIP) to an SRFS equivalent.  Based on the previous analysis, the annual estimate of dead discards from MRIP is 584,194 fish, compared to 272,623 fish estimated by SRFS.  The ratio of these two estimates represents a conversion factor of 2.15020009.  To convert the dead discard estimate from MRIP units to an SRFS equivalent, the conversion factor was applied to the MRIP estimate (i.e., 463,033 dead discards) and equated to a 215,344.1 fish dead discard equivalent in SRFS units.  Because SRFS was calibrated to MRIP in the previous analysis, the difference between these two dead discard estimates (i.e., 463,033 fish – 215,344 fish = 247,688 fish) should be available for harvest, and key reference points related to overfishing could still be maintained, albeit in SRFS currency.

“Similarly, an SRFS equivalent to the harvestable recreational ACL (i.e., 22,787 fish in MRIP units) must be determined.  Using the same approach described above for releases, from 2021-2024, the average annual estimate of landings for all South Atlantic states from MRIP is 212,017.91 fish and the SRFS annual average estimate is 26,709.93 fish.  With MRIP nearly an order of magnitude higher than SRFS the conversion factor for landings is 7.937792.  To convert the 22,787 fish ACL from MRIP units into an SRFS equivalent, the landings conversion factor was applied to the MRIP ACL to equate to a 2,870 fish ACL equivalent in SRFS units.  When combined with the dead discard savings that could be transformed into harvest by using SRFS over MRIP, (i.e., 247,688 fish), the new SRFS-equivalent harvestable ACL by the recreational sector would be 250,559 fish (i.e., 247,688 + 2,870 fish) in the South Atlantic.  [emphasis added, references omitted]”

Thus, Florida made its case that issuance of the exempted fishing permits would not lead to legally-prohibited overfishing.

Does its argument make sense?  Quite honestly, I lack the statistical knowledge, as well as the specific knowledge about the State Reef Fish Survey, needed to make that judgement.  However, there are a couple of things that stand out.

In the “Purposes and Goals” section of its application, Florida states that

“The purpose of this EFP is to allow the FWC to conduct a pilot study in 2026 to test two methods for recreational data collection and for catch, effort and discard monitoring.  These methodologies could then be potentially applied by the State of Florida for management of the private recreational and licensed for-hire components (state and federal) within the red snapper fishery off Florida’s Atlantic coast in state and federal waters:  (1) Florida SRFS and (2) a voluntary smartphone web-based application during trips where a red snapper is harvested…  [emphasis added]”

And with that, it suddenly appears that Florida has snared itself in a trap made of circular logic.

One of the primary purposes of the applied-for exempted fishing permit is to “conduct a pilot study to test” Florida SRFS as a method “for recreational data collection and for catch, effort, and discard monitoring.”

The very words “a pilot study in 2026 to test” clearly suggests that, at this point, the efficacy of Florida SRFS as a recreational data collection methodology remains unproven and unknown.

Yet, at the same time, Florida is using SRFS-derived data—or at least data calibrated in “SRFS units”—to explain why both dead discards and landings are lower than MRIP data suggests, and thus why issuing the EFPs and allowing the proposed 31-day fishing season won’t lead to legally prohibited overfishing.

Florida really can’t have it both ways. 

Either the exempted fishing permits are needed to test Florida SRFS as a valid recreational data collection methodology, in which case SRFS data hasn’t yet been established as superior to MRIP, and can’t be used to demonstrate that overfishing will not occur if the EFPs are issued, or Florida SRFS has already proven itself to be reliable, in which case the exempted fishing permits—and the 31 day season—are not needed to establish that survey’s validity.

But to use a methodology that still needs to be tested to “prove” that anglers are killing fewer fish than MRIP suggests, and thus makes a quarter-million red snapper available for fishing under the EFPs—effectively saying that SRFS data proves that testing the SRFS as a data collection methodology won’t lead to overfishing because the methodology still being tested says so—hardly seems like a winning strategy.

Even if the SRFS data is taken at face value, it’s not clear why “When combined with the dead discard savings that could be transformed into harvest by using SRFS over MRIP, (i.e., 247,688 fish), the new SRFS-equivalent harvestable ACL by the recreational sector would be 250,559 fish (i.e., 247,688 + 2,870 fish) in the South Atlantic.

After all, the commentary accompanying the final version of Amendment 59 to the snapper/grouper plan, which sets the current catch limits, states that

“While the total ACL, and ABC, is equal to 509,000 fish, separated into 34,000 fish from the total ACL that is used to apportion each sector based on the current sector allocations is the result of what remains from the total ACL after accounting for the dead discards (509,000 minus 475,000)…Using the current sector allocation ratio of 28.07 percent commercial and 71.93 percent recreational as applied to the 34,000 fish, this final rule specifies a commercial ACL of 102,951 lb (46,698 kg), and a recreational ACL of 22,797 fish.”

The allocation doesn’t take place until after all of the dead discards, generated by both sectors, are subtracted from the ACL.  Given that existing methodology, should Florida’s calculations be correct, and dead discards are really 247,688 fish lower than currently believed, not all of those fish should be allocated to the recreational sector, nor should all of them be used to hopefully prevent overfishing should the requested 31-day recreational season be put into place. 

Instead, the allocation currently in the management plan should be applied, and only 178,162 fish—71.93 percent—of the supposedly available red snapper applied to the EFP, while the remaining 28.07 percent is allocated to increase the commercial quota.

Of course, we shouldn’t let ourselves ever believe that flaws in the EFP applications, whether logical loops or incorrect allocations, are going to have any impact on whether NMFS eventually issues the EFPs.

As was the case in May, the fix is in at the administrative branch, and NMFS is going to issue the permits, regardless of the applications’ merits.  That’s just the plain, if unpleasant, truth.

The question is what happens next.

The permits issued in May were clearly illegal.  As the court noted, NMFS never even tried to address concerns that serious overfishing would occur if the permits were not enjoined; the agency didn’t even require the states submitting applications to comply with the relevant regulations.  While no lawsuit is ever a slam-dunk, NMFS actions last spring were very hard to defend.

This time, it’s a little different.  Florida, and by extension, Georgia and South Carolina, have presented an argument as to why a 31-day season won’t lead to overfishing, based on SRFS data.  The argument might be logically circular, using what Florida admits is an untested system to prove that overfishing won’t occur, but it has nonetheless been made.  Yet after the comment period ends on August 25, NMFS can—and will—find that Florida’s argument was convincing, that overfishing will not occur, and that the exempted fishing permits may be issued.

Given the legal standard for overturning agency decisions—that there only needs to be some evidence on the record that supports the agency action, even if there are far more comments that suggest that the agency action is wrong—such a finding will likely be very difficult to overturn.

In such case, the commercial sector can only hope that they might claim a somewhat larger annual catch limit as a consolation prize.

As to what will happen to the red snapper itself, who can know?

While the stock is no longer overfished or—at least right now—subject to overfishing, the age structure remains slanted toward smaller fish, skewing its spawning potential toward the low side.  It’s not inconceivable that removing larger numbers of those small fish will depress spawning potential in the long term, and impact the sustainability of the red snapper fishery.  Maybe the stock will just muddle along, neither overfished nor fully restored, for years into the future.  Or maybe it will produce a few more strong year classes, and be fully rebuilt, despite the issuance of the EFPs.

Right now, it’s hard to tell.

But one thing is certain:  In moving forward with the applications for exempted fishing permits, NMFS, the states, and the industry organizations behind the effort are emphasizing short-term exploitation over the long-term health of the red snapper stock.

And that’s always the wrong thing to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUTH ATLANTIC RED SNAPPER: ARE ANGLERS TRULY SEEKING "FAIR ACCESS"?

 

On July 24, 2026, the recreational fishing tackle industry’s largest trade organization, the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), issued a press release which declared that “Sportfishing Groups Support Rep. Austin Scott’s South Atlantic Red Snapper Fair Access Act.”

The press release went on to note,

In recent years, recreational anglers in the South Atlantic have been limited to extremely short red snapper seasons, including one- and two-day openings, while commercial harvest has been open for substantially longer periods lasting weeks or months. The South Atlantic Red Snapper Fair Access Act establishes a straightforward principle: if federal management prohibits the public from recreational harvest of South Atlantic red snapper in federal waters, then commercial harvest and sale of red snapper from federal waters should also be prohibited during that same closure.

On the surface, that might seem reasonable, but anyone aware of the facts underlying South Atlantic red snapper management, and of recent events surrounding that fishery, will quickly realize that the legislation in question has nothing at all to do with fairness, nor with any rational approach to managing the red snapper fishery.

South Atlantic red snapper pose one of the most difficult management problems on the East Coast. A comprehensive stock assessment, released in 2008, found that overfishing had been occurring, and that the stock had been overfished, since the 1960s; at the time of that assessment, spawning stock biomass was believed to be at just 3% of its target level, while the fishing mortality rate exceeded its target by nearly 700%. A second assessment, released two years later and using a different statistical model, came to somewhat less dire conclusions, finding that spawning stock biomass was at about 9% of its target level, and that the fishing mortality rate exceeded its target by a little over 300%.

Those findings resulted in very restrictive regulations being imposed on commercial and recreational fishermen. The fishery was completely shut down in 2011; while some harvest was allowed in subsequent years, the recreational season remained extremely short, ranging anywhere between one and nine days.

The South Atlantic red snapper stock responded to the management measures, and is no longer overfished, nor is it experiencing overfishing. However, anglers continue to fish for other species during the closed red snapper season, in waters where red snapper are present, resulting in very high red snapper bycatch in the recreational snapper-grouper fishery. While that bycatch is, for the most part, returned to the water alive, many of the fish later succumb to barotrauma-related injuries, caused by the sharp change in water pressure that a fish experiences after it is hooked in deep water and then cranked to the surface.

A study published in the May 2026 edition of the journal Fisheries Research, which studied red snapper release mortality off northeastern Florida, found that 46.8% of hooked red snapper that were released at the surface of the ocean died within six hours of release; even when a descending device was used to help released snapper get back to the bottom, 29% of the red snapper died within 48 hours of release.

Such high rates of discard mortality in recreationally released South Atlantic red snapper, which occur throughout the entire year, lead to a massive waste of the red snapper resource, with anglers returning hundreds of thousands of fish to the water to die.

On June 11, 2025, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule implementing Amendment 59 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery in the South Atlantic (Amendment 59). Comments accompanying the rule noted that

Most of the red snapper fishing mortality is attributed to dead discards in the recreational sector. The recreational sector consists of both private recreational anglers and charter vessels and headboats (for-hire). Recreational fishermen discard red snapper during both the directed red snapper recreational open fishing season and during the closed recreational season while 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. [emphasis added]

As a result of that extremely high level of dead recreational discards, far more red snapper are killed and wasted by anglers than are harvested by either commercial or recreational fishermen. Of the total annual catch limit (ACL) of 509,000 red snapper, 475,000, a startling 93.3% of the entire ACL, are set aside for dead discards. Of the remaining 34,000 fish, 22,797 are allocated to the recreational sector, with the remainder allocated to the commercial fishery.

Of all the red snapper caught each year, by both commercial and recreational fishermen, fewer than 7% ultimately go to feed people; the remainder are dumped back into the water to die, and end up feeding the sharks and the crabs.

Because the great majority of that waste occurs when the recreational red snapper season is closed, the only way to meaningfully reduce dead discards while increasing landings is to institute a seasonal closure on all fishing for snapper-grouper species. NMFS attempted to do that, issuing proposed regulations on January 14, 2025, which would have shut down a section of ocean off northeast Florida to all snapper-grouper fishing during the months of December, January, and February.

However, the ASA, along with other members of the recreational fishing industry and various “anglers’ rights” groups such as the Coastal Conservation Association, immediately opposed the closure, apparently believing that 475,000 wasted red snapper was a reasonably price to pay for keeping the season for other snapper-grouper species open. After the new presidential administration entered the White House, it proved sympathetic to industry concerns, and removed the proposed closure from the final version of Amendment 59.

As an alternative, the recreational industry and allied organizations urged NMFS and state fisheries managers in Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas to collaborate on so-called exempted fishing permits which, under the guise of improving recreational catch and landings data, would have extended the recreational red snapper season from two days to 39 days off Florida and 62 days off the other three states.

The exempted fishing permits, which NMFS issued on May 1, 2026, would do little or nothing to reduce anglers’ dead discards; instead, by setting aside certain provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens), including those prohibiting overfishing and requiring fishermen to adhere to annual catch limits, they would have allowed recreational fishermen to overfish the South Atlantic red snapper stock with impunity, while the commercial sector would still be constrained to its scant share of the fishery.

That doesn’t seem particularly fair.

One marine conservation group, the Ocean Conservancy, observed that the longer season could result in anglers landing as many as 485,000 South Atlantic red snapper, about 20 times what would be allowed if the ACL remained in place.

Members of the commercial fishing industry, afraid that such gross overfishing would threaten their ability to harvest their allocated share of the red snapper stock, challenged the exempted fishing permits in federal court, arguing that their issuance violated key provisions of Magnuson-Stevens, including its requirement that “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing.” A federal judge agreed, and issued a temporary injunction preventing anglers from fishing pursuant to the exempted fishing permits.

In his decision, the judge stated that

Traditional tools of statutory analysis show that any [exempted fishing permits] the NMFS issues must comply with the [Magnuson-Stevens Act]…

Therefore, at a minimum, each EFP the agency issues—including data collection projects—must ‘address’ (i.e., ‘to give attention to or deal with a matter or problem’) the ‘needs’ (i.e., necessary dut[ies] or obligation[s]’) Congress identified within Chapter 38 [of Magnuson-Stevens] several of which emphasize the need to prevent overfishing…

while the Court agrees with the Government that Congress, through section 1867(d) [of Magnuson-Stevens], authorized the NMFS to ‘create an expedited, uniform, and regionally-based process to promote issuance, when practicable, of experimental fishing permits,’ the Court does not find that Congress gave the Government unbridled discretion to circumvent MSA and the fishery management plan framework through the EFP process…As Amicus Curiae aptly observes, ‘nothing in [Section 1867(b)]…gives the [NMFS] general authority to exempt fishing activities from any legal requirements…let alone indicate[s] that Congress meant for [EFPs] to become a vehicle to deregulate fisheries’…As explained above, EFPs must ‘address’ the ‘needs’ identified under the MSA—not provide an escape hatch from them. Such needs include the overarching requirement that fisheries be managed to prevent and end overfishing.

The various recreational fishing organizations that championed the exempted fishing permits in the hopes of gaining longer recreational red snapper seasons waxed indignant when the court’s decision was released, but have since showed little interest in continuing litigation.

When viewed in that historical context, the true nature of the South Atlantic Red Snapper Fair Access Act (Act) becomes clear. Far from being an effort to strike some sort of equitable balance between the recreational and commercial red snapper fisheries, the bill is really a petty, almost childish, effort to gain some sort of revenge against the commercial red snapper fishermen for prevailing in their effort to invalidate the exempted fishing permits.

And what makes it worse is that the proponents of the Act aren’t even trying to hide their motivations. The ASA press release clearly says,

This summer, recreational anglers in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina were set to receive expanded red snapper access through NOAA-approved, state-led Exempted Fishing Permit pilot programs that would have expanded fishing opportunity through advanced recreational data collection and improved management, but those seasons were halted by a preliminary injunction resulting from a lawsuit filed by commercial fishermen…

“South Atlantic red snapper is an important public resource, and access to that resource should be managed fairly,” said Rep. Scott. “If commercial fishing interests are concerned enough about the current condition of the red snapper fishery to support shutting down recreational access, then commercial sale and harvest of the same stock, from federal waters, should be limited during the same closure. This is not about attacking commercial fishing. It is about making sure that conservation burdens are being shared fairly.”

And the Act itself includes findings that

(1) South Atlantic red snapper is a healthy public fishery resource that supports recreational anglers, for-hire operators, coastal communities, fishing tackle retailers, marinas, lodging providers, and other businesses throughout the South Atlantic region.

(2) In recent years, recreational harvest of South Atlantic red snapper in Federal waters has been limited to extremely short seasons, including one- and two-day seasons, despite historic abundance and strong public demand for access to the fishery.

(3) Conversely, commercial harvest of South Atlantic red snapper in Federal waters has remained longer for substantially longer periods, including commercial seasons that have lasted for weeks or months in recent years.

(4) Leading up to the 2026 recreational fishing season, the States of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, working with the National Marine Fisheries Service, developed and received approval for State-led exempted fishing permit pilot programs designed to improve recreational fisheries data collection, test State management strategies, reduce uncertainty, and provide more reasonable recreational access to South Atlantic red snapper.

(5) Those State-led pilot programs were halted by a preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, blocking the approved 2026 pilot seasons for the States of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, including Florida’s season just hours before it was scheduled to begin.

(6) While anglers continue to sit at the dock awaiting a management system that allows reasonable access to a healthy public fishery resource, conservation burdens and access restrictions should be shared fairly across sectors.

It’s a remarkable set of findings, not only for what it says, but also for what it doesn’t say. For example, it notes that the “State-led pilot programs” were “halted by a preliminary injunction,” but failed to explain that the exempted fishery permits were enjoined because issuance of those permits was patently illegal and in clear violation of the provisions of Magnuson-Stevens. Instead, the findings almost suggest that the fishermen were victims of a court’s arbitrary and capricious whim.

The Act also exhibits a very warped concept of “fairness.”

The Act, as well as the ASA and other recreational fisheries interests, tie “fairness” solely to the comparative lengths of the recreational and commercial fishing seasons, when in reality, it is not the length of the season, but how many fish are removed from the population, which is the primary management concern.

From that standpoint, the deck is stacked against the commercial fishery, and in favor of anglers, from the start, as NMFS regulations allocate 71.93% of what remains of the ACL, after dead discards are subtracted, to the recreational fishery, and the remainder to commercial fishermen.

In 2025, recreational landings were limited to 22,797 fish, which were expected to weigh about 263,815 pounds, compared to the 102,951 pounds allocated to the commercial sector, and anglers caught those 22,797 fish very quickly. Over the course of just two days, recreational fishermen didn’t just land 22,797 red snapper, they landed 36,482, an overage that probably exceeded all of the South Atlantic red snapper landed by the commercial fleet over the course of the year.

Yet, despite significantly exceeding their ACL, anglers are calling their two-day season “unfair.”

Even that doesn’t tell the whole story, because along with the fish that they landed were the fish that they returned to the water to die. About 98% of the 475,000 dead discards are attributable to the recreational sector, and if those 465,500 dead discards are added to the 36,482 red snapper that anglers actually harvested in 2025, one ends up with nearly 502,000 red snapper killed by recreational fishermen, compared to the approximately 20,703 red snapper (consisting of a harvest of roughly 11,203 fish, assuming an average weight of 9.19 pounds, plus 9,500 dead discards).

Still, the recreational fishery is complaining that that is “unfair”—to them.

In 2025, recreational fishermen were responsible for about 96% of all of the fishing mortality of South Atlantic red snapper. Yet they are still claiming that they are being denied reasonable access to the red snapper resource, and are thus seeking “fair access” by outlawing commercial fishing when the recreational season is closed.

It is an incredible claim, that has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with a group of sore losers, who unfortunately presume to speak for the entire recreational sector, trying to wreak some sort of vengeance against the commercial red snapper fleet, simply because the commercial fishermen chose not to allow NMFS to illegally issue exempted fishing permits that could have easily resulted in harm to both the red snapper stock and to the fishermen’s livelihoods.

The Act supports the recreational spokesmen’s malignant claim, and in doing so, promotes the worst sort of inequity.

-----

This essay first appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which can be found at http://conservefish.org/blog/

LAND-BASED SHARK FISHING: SPORT, STUNT, OR SCOURGE?

 

Catching sharks from shore, or from shore-based structures, is nothing new.

I first saw people do it in February 1970, when I was 15 years old and on a family vacation down in Ft. Pierce, Florida.  We spent most of our days—and parts of our nights—fishing off the South Jetty at Ft. Pierce inlet, catching everything from sting rays to snook.  One afternoon, we walked out to our usual spot and noticed that something very different was going on out near the jetty’s tip.

There were half a dozen fishermen clustered around the place where the asphalt pavement that ran most of the length of the jetty ended, and the jumbled, unpaved boulders began.  They were fishing much heavier tackle than anyone else was using, and a few of them were wearing jackets with club colors embroidered across the back reading “Palm Beach Shark Club,” maybe “West Palm Beach Shark Club,” or something of that ilk. 

That was over 55 years ago now, and I no longer recall for sure.

We watched them for a while.  It didn’t take long until a fish picked up one of their baits, and an intense, but fairly short, fight began.  Eventually, the fish, which one of the fishermen said was a bull shark weighing about 200 pounds, was unceremoniously gaffed, dragged up over the rocks and onto the asphalt, and stabbed in the head with a knife, which didn’t survive the experience.

Some time later, with the shark appearing dead (although it might well not have been), the fishermen roughly cut out its jaws and went home, leaving the corpse for someone else to clean up, as it lay marinating in a pool of congealing blood and provided some food for the flies.

I don’t recall if any photos were taken, but that was close to half a century before Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, so photos weren’t the same sort of currency that they are today.

There was no Internet then, and land-based shark fishing didn’t get a lot of public attention, athough a photo might crop up from time to time in a newspaper or on TV, and every five or ten years, one of the “big three” outdoor magazines of the time—Outdoor Life, Sports Afield, and Field & Stream—might publish something about it.

Like any normal 15-year-old boy, attracted to violence and physical challenge, I was immediately smitten with the activity, and spent most of the rest of the trip sitting out at the end of the jetty, fishing a chunk of grunt on the heaviest outfit that I brought along on the trip, but the sharks showed no interest, which was probably just as well, as a shark of any substance would probably have stripped all 300 yards of 12-pound line off my reel in a matter of moments, and left me standing on the rocks with an open mouth and an empty spool.

Such was my introduction to land-based shark fishing.

Things have changed a lot since then.

Perhaps the biggest change is the attitude towards the sharks themselves.  Shore-based shark fishermen no longer view their quarry as entertaining vermin, to be killed and their jaws cut out while their bodies are dumped.  Catch-and-release is now the general rule, although depending on species, the occasional fish might be kept as food.  Some land-based shark fishermen tag the fish they catch, in an effort to help shark researchers.

But for many, getting good “content” for Internet posts seems to be the primary draw.

Yet, despite all the changes, the question remains:  Is land-based shark fishing a legitimate, sustainable recreational activity, or does it cause undo harm and unjustifiable levels of fishing mortality to the fish that are caught, many species of which—and this can differ from place to place—are faring so poorly overall that they have been placed on a “prohibited species list” by state and federal regulators, and in some places, including my native New York, may not even be legally targeted in a catch-and-release fishery, much less intentionally killed.

Right now, it seems that the tide may have started to flow against land-based shark fishing, as states begin to enact regulations to rein in, if not the entire fishery, then at least its worst abuses.  Although it’s always difficult to craft general rules, and exceptions always arise, it seems that, on the whole, states between New England and Virginia seem most concerned with protecting their shark populations, while those between North Carolina and Texas are less concerned about the well-being of local sharks and more worried about preventing interactions between sharks those using the states’ beaches.

It’s a division that makes a sort of sense, not only from a tourism perspective, but also because of the different species of sharks found in state waters.  Southern states host a plethora of species, many of which may be legally targeted and retained if of legal size, but as one moves north, prohibited species begin to dominate the mix, with sandbars, sand tigers, duskies, and even white sharks becoming a significant part of the catch.

It was that predominance of prohibited species, and in particular, anglers trying to catch white sharks from shore, that led Massachusetts to become the latest state to adopt regulations limiting land-based shark fishing.

On July 2, 2025, that state issued a press release that stated, in part,

“Shore-based shark fishing is growing in popularity along the coast and Massachusetts has become a desirable location to conduct such fishing.  While DMF regulations already prohibit attracting and targeting great white sharks, it has become evident in recent years that these rules are difficult to enforce and in need of clarification to ameliorate user-group conflicts.  Last year, there were several instances where anglers likely fishing for white sharks from shore caused public safety risks for other beach-goers.  In response, DMF has taken action to prevent the further expansion of this fishing activity and improve enforceability of existing regulations.”

That’s an important message, because it addresses a problem that seems to exist in many places where land-based shark fishing takes place, and one that we will address again later in this essay:  Too many participants in the fishery seem to have no respect for either the law or the fish that they pursue, and are willing to engage in illegal activity, that is often also harmful to the shark, just to indulge their desire to catch fish and create Internet content, thus forcing states to place more restrictions on the land-based shark fishery.  In Massachusetts’ case, targeting white sharks from shore was already illegal, but fishermen did it anyway, forcing the state to impose a greater regulatory burden on land-based shark fishermen.

“To better restrict the targeting of white sharks were they are most commonly found, DMF created an area…where anglers are prohibited from fishing from shore with a baited hook that has an inside gap exceeding 5/8 inch (when measured straight across from barb to shank) coupled with a wire or metal leader that measures more than 18 inches…Additionally, if you are fishing and using [a] heavy hook and leader combination outside of the prohibited area, you may not chum from sunrise to sunset.

“Lastly, DMF has prohibited anglers from using mechanized, compressed-propulsion, and remote-controlled devices to deploy baits when shore-fishing for sharks or any other species.  Common devices included in this prohibition are bait cannons, drones, and so called ‘rc-boats’ (radio- or remote-controlled boats).  Deploying baits with manual devices such as kayaks and kites remains allowed.  The purpose of this action is two-fold.  First, it complements the above-described regulations to restrict the shore-based targeting of white sharks.  By prohibiting the use of these devices while shore-based shark fishing, anglers will be constrained in setting bait beyond the surf where white sharks occur, thereby limiting the ability of anglers to target these animals and ameliorating resulting user group and public safety conflicts.  Additionally, by prohibiting the use of these devices, DMF aims to reduce stresses on fish that can increase post-release mortality.  These devices allow shore-based anglers to target fish at greater distances and specific size classes of fish when conditions allow.  Inevitably, this will increase the frequency that fish are caught, and increase the fight time and stress associated with the catch…”

On July 21, 2026, Massachusetts expanded the “prohibited area” for shore-based white shark fishing, which had previously been limited to the shores of Cape Cod Bay and along the entire outer Cape from Race Point to Chatham Harbor, to also include the island of Nantucket.  However, the release announcing the expansion also noted that shore-based shark fishing for other prohibited species, specifically including sandbars and sand tigers, remained legal throughout the state, provided that legal equipment was used.

The Massachusetts regulations follow a path blazed by New York in 2024, although New York’s restrictions on the shore-based shark fishery are far more comprehensive, and intended to protect the prohibited species that make up most of the catch there.  The Department of Environmental Conservation’s website makes those concerns abundantly clear, beginning with a highlighted box that reads,

“It is illegal to pursue, capture, kill, or otherwise harass prohibited shark species in New York State waters.  Do not fish for prohibited sharks.  If captured, prohibited sharks must remain in the water and must be released immediately, without undue harm.  These rules apply to all vessel-based and shore-based anglers.  [emphasis in original]”

In fact, it’s not only prohibited species that must be released immediately, as the website goes on to explain that

“A shark that is not being harvested may not be removed from the water.  The entire length of the shark must remain in the water with its gills submerged,”

and

“A shark that is not being harvested must be released without undue harm.  Anglers are prohibited from engaging in any activities which may decrease the shark’s probability of survival after release.”

Those rules complement others designed to minimize the number of prohibited species that are hooked and put at risk, including

“It is unlawful for a person to chum from shore with anything other than mollusks or crustaceans,”

“Non-stainless steel, non-offset circle hooks are required when using baited hooks for sharks,”

“It is unlawful for a shore angler to use a baited hook attached to a metal fishing leader that exceeds 18 inches in total length,”

“It is unlawful for a shore angler to deploy baited hooks by any means other than casting with rod and reel [i.e., no drones, etc.],”

and

“Shark anglers must have wire or bolt cutters immediately available to aid in the removal of tackle and release of sharks that are not being harvested.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the members of the land-based shark fishing community are largely ignoring those rules.  A video that showed up on Facebook a few weeks ago showed an angler reportedly fishing off Rockaway Beach in New York City catching both a sand tiger, which is a prohibited species, and a bull shark, which is not, and dragging them both out of the water in violation of the law, before eventually releasing them.

Another shows a big sand tiger that was hauled onto the sand at Gilgo Beach in Suffolk County in early July (with neither bolt cutter nor wire clipper evident during the release).

Still another from about the same time shows an angler sitting atop a prohibited sand tiger shark—certainly something “which may decrease the shark’s probability of survival after release”—high and dry on the sand, while his companion tries to remove the hook, again without benefit of bolt cutters or clippers.

The same sort of thing happens at Robert Moses State Park and elsewhere on the South Shore of Long Island.  In fact, if you take the time to look through all of the land-based shark fishing videos taken anywhere on New York’s beaches, about the one thing that you’re not going to see is someone obeying the law; without exception, fish are dragged out of the water, release is delayed while video is taken, bolt cutter and/or wire cutters are nowhere to be seen, etc.

And prohibited species are being displayed just about all the time.

And that blatant disregard for both the rules and the fish definitely militates toward moving land-based shark fishing, at least in New York, from the “avocation” into the “nuisance” category.

Of all the states, Florida has probably done the most to try to get its arms around the problem, yet Florida is an interesting case.  Unlike the northeastern states, where prohibited species dominate, Florida has a plethora of species that are not on the prohibited list, including blacktips, spinners, tigers, nurses, and bulls, along with a number of smaller species.  However, the state also prohibits the harvest of tiger sharks and the various hammerhead species, even though they are not on the federal prohibited list, and hosts populations of other prohibited species as well.

Florida found itself in a position where it needed to protected prohibited species and other, while not prohibited, still at-risk species, but at the same time didn’t want to cut off opportunities to fish from the beach for sharks that could be sustainably targeted.

So it ended up starting from scratch, and trying to put together a program that might be able to meet both objectives.

Unique among all the states, Florida requires anyone who wishes to engage in land-based shark fishing to first take a four-module course that includes lessons on relevant fishing regulations, appropriate fishing equipment, shore-based shark fishing ethics, and shark identification, and then get a perfect score on a 10-question quiz that follows.  In scope and testing, the Florida course is significantly more rigorous than the video course the National Marine Fisheries Service requires of those who wish to have a Shark Endorsement added to their Angling Category Highly Migratory Species Permit.

It’s a requirement that more states ought to adopt.

One of the themes running through the Florida course, just as it runs through New York regulations, is that prohibited species may not be removed from the water; instead, the entire shark must remain in the water, deep enough that the gills remain covered.  In addition, the course warns against delaying release for any reason, including photography, taking measurements, or even tagging the fish.

Principles of “shark smart” handling and release listed on the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission web page include

“Keep sharks, especially the gills, in the water,”

“Removing sharks from the water can increase the likelihood of injuries to the shark,”

and

“Minimize handling and release time and do not delay release just to take pictures.”

But once again, such rules are ignored, as even land-based shark fishing guides, who ought to know better, flood their Facebook pages with photos of prohibited species dragged onto the sand for posed photos that delay their eventual release and threaten their lives.

Great hammerheads might be a state-prohibited species, and particularly vulnerable to release mortality, but that doesn’t stop guides from selling their services with photos of them sitting atop a tailroped fish, holding its head at an unnatural angle in water too shallow to cover its gills, in order to sell their services.

Those sort of photos abound.

Photos of fishermen properly handling shore-caught sharks are a lot harder to come by.

So, once again, we need to ask the question, can shore-based shark fishing be a legitimate sport, or do the personalities of those who pursue it, and refuse to adhere to basic standards of fish handling, make it a threat to at least some depleted shark stocks?

The answer is not cut and dried.

There is evidence that even species such as great hammerheads, which are deemed “highly sensitive” to release mortality, can be successfully released from the beach.  One small-scale study conducted in 2021 implanted pop-off satellite archival tags in 15 great hammerheads that were caught from the beach, using standard land-based shark fishing tackle.  Although the tags were supposed to remain in the sharks for up to 30 days, all deployed much sooner; retention time averaged only 7.6 days, within a 3- to 16-day range. 

Of the 15 sharks, one clearly died soon after release, three tags malfunctioned, and 11 indicated that the sharks survived, at least for the period that the tag remained implanted.  Yet once again, human behavior is at the core of the issue, for as the study noted,

“The anglers decided how to handle the sharks and their position on the shore therefore sampling conditions varied from .5 m [about 19.5 inches] of water with no waves to 1-1.5 m [39-59 inches] breaking waves.”

So, at all times during the study, the tagged sharks remained in water deep enough to swim, to fully cover their gills, and to support their weight.  Never were they dragged into the wash or onto the sand, the way hammerhead typically are in Internet photos and videos.

“We acknowledge that there are likely biases in our study that may have led to this unexpectedly low mortality rate.  Firstly, like with many co-produced research projects, we collaborated with anglers who were willing to work with, and be observed by scientists which could lead to anglers being on their ‘best behavior.’  These anglers are also likely to care about the conservation of the species and of the fishery and strive for responsible fishing techniques.”

In other words, the people who have made themselves the public face of the land-based shark fishing community were not the same folks who were helping out with the study—or, if they were, they substantially altered their behavior for the duration.

And the public face of the land-based shark fishing community isn’t doing itself any favors.

While Massachusetts, New York, and Florida are the only states to adopt comprehensive regulatory packages governing shore-based shark fishing, it appears that another state, Delaware, stands on the threshold of doing so.  Delaware regulations already provide that

“It is unlawful for any hook and line fisherman to remove from the water sandbar shark, or any other species of shark when prohibited from harvest under [applicable law],”

and that

“It is unlawful to release any shark in the management unit or any sandbar shark in a manner that will not ensure said shark’s maximum probability of survival.  All species of shark when prohibited from harvest…must be immediately released.”

Of course, those rules get ignored, too. 

A quick google search will turn up a group of Delaware anglers mishandling a trifecta of prohibited species—sandbar, sand tiger, and dusky—as well as other examples of “content creators” fishing Delaware shores mishandling prohibited species for likes.  Although at least one angler was caught by a news camera trying to do it right.

So now, Delaware apparently feels that angler misconduct is forcing it to take further regulatory action.  Like New York, it is considering a complete ban on anglers using kayaks, drones, remote-controlled boats or similar means to deploy baits, whether meant for sharks or anything else.

Some anglers are unhappy with the proposal, but it’s hard to deny that widespread bad behavior is leading to what some fishermen view as bad outcomes.

But it seems like some fishermen are starting to get the message and, surprisingly, that message seems to be sinking in deepest in New Jersey, a state that has not heavily regulated its shore-based shark fishery—yet.

The weekly New Jersey/Delaware Bay fishing report was released by The Fisherman Magazine this morning, and it spends some time addressing the land-based shark fishing issue, including the proposed rules in Delaware, with editor Jim Hutchinson, Jr. advising,

“I know that I keep talking about this surf shark fishing, but it’s getting big.  It’s getting out of hand.  And it’s getting highly scrutinized at this point, it’s become a hot-button issue…even in Florida, where individuals probably enjoy the most freedom among any of the Atlantic coastal states, the latest headlines there also show trouble is brewing on the beaches of Florida.  One thing to really keep in mind…you need to take extra precaution with releasing big game on the beach, but especially sand tigers.  Sand tigers are really prone to catch and release mortality.  They swallow baits more than brown sharks or other sharks they just swallow the baits whole.  They’re more susceptible to getting gut hooked, and they’re a little bit more fragile.  And folks, this is really what our community should try to refrain from [showing photo of angler with a sand tiger on the beach, sitting on top of it, pulling its nose high—well above anything the fish’s spine would experience naturally—to display the shark’s teeth].  The time it takes to set up your photo, climbing on top of the sand tiger to hold open its mouth, to show off its teeth, is precious time which should be spent getting that shark back in the water so they don’t wash up in the morning.  So that giant hammerhead in Florida is causing a scene because it’s a dead fish that washed up on the beach, that folks were saying, ‘It was caught by a surfcaster.’  That’s the same thing that’s happening with these sand tigers [photo of dead, desiccated, washed-up sand tiger lying on a beach].  Folks get up in the morning, they see a sand tiger dead on the beach, next thing you know, all the microscope is on us.  So be responsible with the release, be even more so with what you choose to post on social media.  Because if you don’t think that enforcement is watching…”

Perhaps the most relevant article appeared in TheSandPaper.net, a website serving New Jersey’s Long Beach Island and southern Ocean County.  It began with a warning:

“As the state sees an increase in recreational beachfront shark fishing—with photo ops of catches proliferating on social media—the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection’s Fish and Wildlife Division reminds anglers there are state and federal regulations in place to help vulnerable species, and these regulations are enforced.

“The division is also ‘currently in the policy development stage to assess our regulations while working with municipalities most heavily impacted by shore-based shark fishing to identify their needs and concerns,’ NJDEP Press Officer Vincent Grassi said on Monday, Aug. 3.

“’New Jersey shark fishing regulations are guided by policy set at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,’ Grassi explained.  ‘These regulations call for the use of corrodible, non-stainless circle hooks, forbid the targeting of prohibited species, and set a closed spring season.

“’NJDEP is aware of other states’ regulations, such as the immediate release of non-retained species without removal from the water, closed shark fishing areas, shark fishing permit requirements, and defined shark fishing gear.

“Federal regulations, meanwhile, bar the targeting of any prohibited species, ‘and anglers mujst release any prohibited shark immediately, without removing it from the water and in a manner that maximizes its chances for survival,’ Grassi noted.  ‘For example, sand tiger sharks are a prohibited species, therefore, posing for pictures on the beach with this species or any other species on the prohibited list is a violation of federal regulations.’

“’For shark species that are not on the prohibited list, (Fish and Wildlife) highly discourages posing for photos in order to increase the shark’s chances of survival,’ he said.”

That sort of language, coming from an official spokesman for the agency that manages New Jersey’s salt water fisheries, strongly suggests that New Jersey might, at some point in the not-too-distant future, join Massachusetts, New York, Florida and, perhaps, Delaware, as a state with a comprehensive set of regulations designed to rein in the abuses of the shore-based shark fishery, and protect the various prohibited species of shark,

But there were a couple of other voices quoted in that SandPaper article that also deserve to be heard.  Both are land-based shark fishermen.

One, Kevin-Scott van Vlijmen laid it right on the line:

“The state believes that half of all shark anglers are educated on the right techniques and gear, and the other half are not.  That’s a big number; do better guys!

“The state believes that many people are using light line, exposing the fish to barbed hooks and not using preventative methods to stop sand tigers from swallowing hooks.  Guys, I don’t care if you don’t have the money for it.  If you’re not willing to make the effort to be a good representation of this sport, I don’t want to see you on our beaches.  Don’t be the reason for ruining our hobby.”

 The other angler, Elijah Allen, resignedly said,

“There’s been a lot of hate these past couple years on shark fishing.  It’s imperative that we do better.  We can’t really get mad at the state for enforcing stricter fishing when guys not only treat the sharks poorly, but post it online for views as well.  We can do better, for sure.”

Those anglers seem to represent the voice of reason in the land-based shark fishing debate.  Yet, while there’s little doubt that land-based shark anglers can do better, the question is whether they’re willing to do so, if it means giving up the shark-sitting-on-the-sand, angler-sitting-on-the-shark videos, replete with their pried-open jaws and sharks dragged by the tail, that seem to be an inherent part of the land-based shark fishing culture.

Right now, I have my doubts, but there is always a chance that common sense will prevail.

If it does, then land-based shark fishing, at least in the South, might well be able to become a legitimate, ethical sport, practiced with due respect for the law and the sharks themselves.  It won’t be an easy transition, given the current abundance of Internet stuntmen who seem more than willing to trade a shark’s life for more likes, but it could happen.

North of the Chesapeake Bay, maybe even north of Cape Hatteras, I doubt that l jand-based shark fishery will, or even can, evolve into an ethical sport.  Prohibited species are just too big a part of the catch (and please don’t give me that “we were not targeting sandbars or sand tigers, but can’t control what takes the bait” excuse; you know what the species mix is in your region, and you know that prohibited species and, too often, sand tigers, make up the majority of your catch).

At least from Maryland north, targeting sharks from the shore will probably always be synonymous with targeting prohibited species.  That may change a bit later next year, if the pending sandbar shark stock assessment leads to NMFS taking sandbars off the prohibited species list, but there will still be a lot of vulnerable sand tigers to deal with.

So long as that is the case, the northern and upper mid-Atlantic states are likely to continue to adopt regulations intended to better protect prohibited sharks, and rein in the land-based shark fishery that threatens to remove too many sharks from protected populations.

Which is probably the right thing to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“