GULF RED SNAPPER: TEXANS IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES

When it comes to hypocrisy, red snapper anglers in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly those represented by the Coastal Conservation Association, are the gift that just keeps on giving.

They have deemed the federal fishery management system “broken” simply because it doesn’t allow them to chronically overfish the Gulf red snapper stock.

They have condemned that management system for imposing short recreational red snapper seasons, but never cared to admit that such short seasons are needed to balance extremely long state-waters seasons, when many red snapper are caught.

They fought against a “sector separation” amendment that potentially gave the for-hire fleet a longer federal waters season than the private boats had, but supported long—sometimes year-long—state waters seasons that extended well beyond the federal season, when private boats could fish while federally-permitted for-hire vessels could not.

They oppose the existing “catch share” program that allows commercial fishermen to purchase and sell the right to catch a given quantity of red snapper, but supported, and even helped to design, a different catch share program that would have allowed them to purchase and sell the right to catch a given amount of red snapper.

They hailed a federal fishery program that allowed states to set red snapper seasons in federal waters, then cried like spoiled children when held accountable for state decisions that allowed them to kill too many fish.

They…

Well, you get the idea.

This week, comments made by the Coastal Conservation Association may have taken that organization's trademark hypocrisy to a whole new level.

It begins,

“The recent announcement by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to close the state-water red snapper season on Nov 15 for the rest of the year is an unfortunate consequence of NOAA Fisheries continued oppressive control of the fishery and the dysfunctional relationship the federal agency has fostered with state fisheries managers.”

Thus, the comments start off on the wrong foot, because closing the Texas red snapper season was, first and foremost, a consequence of Texas’ recreational red snapper fishermen exceeding their state’s recreational red snapper quota last year, and having to make good for their overage by catching fewer in 2021.  

But admitting that truth would also suggest that recreational red snapper fishermen have some responsibility for their own actions, and that’s a notion that the Coastal Conservation Association has been trying to squelch for many years.

Digging down to the next layer, the CCA seems to be avoiding the fact that if anyone other than the fishermen themselves ought to be blamed for the closure, it is the CCA itself.  For many years, Texas never closed its state red snapper season.  It allowed fishermen to take twice as many snapper as federal rules permitted, and let those fish be an inch shorter, too. 

But then the CCA. and its fellow members of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, convinced the National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt a new management approach that allocated each state bordering the Gulf of Mexico its own recreational quota, allowed such states to set the recreational seasons in both state and adjacent federal waters, and held anglers accountable for any overages of their states’ quotas.

The Center for Sportfishing Policy was so supportive of that new approach to management, even when it was still in its experimental stage, that it released a statement saying

“Recreational anglers and industry stakeholders are applauding the decision by NOAA Fisheries within the U.S. Department of Commerce and anticipate the Gulf states will finally be able to prove their effectiveness in managing red snapper off their coasts.”

Jeff Angers, President of the Center, gushed

“We owe a great deal of thanks to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for his resolve in finding a solution to the red snapper management mess in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is a huge step forward for recreational anglers.  We are delighted to see a new level of cooperation between state and federal fishery managers and a respect for recreational fisheries at the federal level like we have never seen before.”

In comments to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, supporting an amendment that would make such state control of federal-waters seasons a permanent part of the fishery management plan, the Coastal Conservation Association wrote

“Coastal Conservation Association applauds the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the Gulf states for their efforts on Amendment 50—State Management of Recreational Red Snapper.  We commend the state fish and wildlife agencies of the Gulf Coast not only for taking on this task but for developing a comprehensive plan for how they will cooperatively manage this resource going forward and provide greater access to it for their citizens.

“We have been encouraged by the effort put forth in this amendment by the state fisheries directors to recognize and address the unique aspects of the recreational red snapper fishery in different regions of the Gulf…With support from Congressmen, governors, and anglers, the state directors agreed to take on management of red snapper on a more permanent basis not only because they saw no other viable options, but because they knew they could do a better job.  And they have…”

Texas lost its ability to maintain a year-round state waters season when the new management program was approved.

So, when it turned out that state fishery managers’ “better job” wasn’t quite as good as people might have hoped, and that the seasons established by Texas and some other states allowed recreational fishermen to kill too many red snapper and face pound-for-pound paybacks as a result, it would have been reasonable for the Coastal Conservation Association to take responsibility and tell anglers, including its members, that

“We got the red snapper management program that we asked for.  It’s new, and like any new program, it’s going to take some time to work out the bugs.  It looks like we took home too many red snapper last year, and we’re going to have to accept some accountability as a result.”

But, as noted before, accepting responsibility isn’t really the CCA’s strong point.

Instead of doing so, it once again threw a tantrum, with its spokesman, Ted Venker, wailing and whining and blaming the National Marine Fisheries Service (a/k/a “NOAA Fisheries”) for closing the Texas season.

“This is an agency that refuses to admit it is ever wrong but expects perfection in everyone else.  The closure in Texas and the ongoing situation in Alabama and Mississippi [where anglers grossly overfished their state snapper allocations] make it very clear that NOAA Fisheries will continue to insist on tying the future of red snapper to its history of mistakes, bad data, greed, and politics.  The only way to truly fix this fishery is give full management of the fishery to the states once and for all.”

Overdose on hypocrisy yet?  Because even a cursory analysis makes it clear that Venker’s words, and phrases like “refuses to admit it is ever wrong but expects perfection in everyone else,” and “history of mistakes, bad data, greed, and politics,” are far more applicable to the Coastal Conservation Association than to NOAA Fisheries.

Just think about it:  In all the years that the red snapper debate has been going on, have you ever heard the CCA say that federal fishery managers just might be right?  About anything?

In 2007, NMFS instituted a catch share program in the Gulf’s commercial red snapper fishery.  Since that program was instituted, the commercial sector hasn’t once overfished its allocation, while the recreational allocation is regularly exceeded.  Yet the CCA claims that

“Catch-share fishery programs don’t pass the smell test,”

After fourteen years without a commercial overage, the CCA still won’t admit that catch shares work in the commercial red snapper fishery. 

And the CCA was obviously wrong in believing that allowing the states to set the red snapper seasons won’t prevent recreational paybacks, but it won't admit that, either.

Instead, it picks away at every federal fishery management decision, trying to find the slightest reason to level criticism against NMFS, even if it has to take liberties with the facts to do so.  A recent screed, in which it assumed that every boat fishing for red snapper out of Alabama ports had only a single person on board, is a case in point.

So who, exactly, “refuses to admit it is ever wrong but expects perfection in everyone else?”

It certainly doesn't seem to be NMFS.

As far as “a history of mistakes, bad data, greed, and politics” goes, we’ll have to take those one by one.

“A history of mistakes” and “bad data” more or less go hand in hand.  

With respect to bad data, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs the actions of federal fisheries managers, requires that

“Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.”

Any management decision that is not based on such information may be challenged in court.

So if NOAA Fisheries was actually basing its red snapper management on bad data, one would expect to see the CCA filing lawsuits challenging such decisions.  Or, more precisely, because the CCA does file a lawsuit from time to time, one would expect to see the CCA winning lawsuits based on challenges to NOAA Fisheries’ data.

The only red snapper lawsuit that CCA appears to have filed over the past decade was Coastal Conservation Association v. United States Department of Commerce, in which the CCA challenged a rule that would allow the for-hire red snapper fleet to be regulated differently from private boat anglers.  The matter was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on January 17, 2017.  CCA lost.

If we go also consider suits in which the CCA intervened in an effort to affect the outcome, we find one more, Guindon v. Pritzker, a 2014 decision, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Commercial red snapper fishermen brought suit against NMFS, claiming that they were harmed by NMFS’ repeated failures to hold recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico accountable for chronically overfishing their red snapper quota.  CCA challenged the plaintiff’s right to maintain the lawsuit, and also argued that the plaintiffs were not challenging NMFS’ actions, but rather its inaction, and that such inaction was not amenable to judicial review.  CCA lost.

Suits that the CCA actually won over the past year, at least with respect to red snapper, don’t seem to appear.

So the courts seem to be saying that it is CCA who has a "history of mistakes."

But when it comes to bad data, it’s also important to see what the scientists say. 

Back in 2017, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Marine Recreational Information Program, and found that, although it wasn’t perfect and could use some improvement with respect to fish, such as red snapper, that were subject to in-season management,

“Work to redesign the National Marine Fisheries Service’s recreational fishery survey program (now referred to as the Marine Recreational Information Program) has yielded impressive progress over the past decade in providing more reliable data to fisheries managers.  Major improvements to the statistical soundness of the survey designs were achieved by reducing sources of bias and increasing sampling efficiency as well as through increased coordination with partners and engagement of expert consultants.”

So, for general use, the scientists seem to believe that the federal fishery data is pretty good.

In order to make the Marine Recreational Information Program better at estimating red snapper landings, the Gulf Coast states worked with NMFS to develop localized surveys that would supplement MRIP and allow it to produce more timely estimates of red snapper landings.  Florida developed its Gulf Reef Fish Survey.  Alabama developed Snapper Check.  Mississippi developed Tails ‘n Scales, while Louisiana developed LA Creel.

All were certified by NMFS, and all were intended to allow MRIP to estimate recreational red snapper landings soon after such landings occurred.  Once each survey’s estimates were converted into a “common currency” with the estimates produced by MRIP, such estimates could be integrated into the overall red snapper management program.

Only Texas failed to develop a catch estimate program that would work with MRIP, and make it possible to provide timely red snapper estimates.  Instead, Texas continued to rely on its archaic Marine Recreational Fishing Survey, that was developed in 1974. 

It’s hard to find much information on the Internet about the Texas survey which, perhaps, isn’t surprising, given that the term “Internet” wasn’t yet heard when the survey was developed; back then, computer input was generally provided by punch cards and magnetic tape; neither laptops, desktops, nor direct keyboard entry were yet being used.

What little information is available reveals that the Texas survey reaches people who wade, fish from the bank or from piers, or launch boats at public ramps.  Anglers fishing on boats that depart from private marinas or docks—which might logically include most of the larger boats capable of running out to federal waters in search of red snapper—do not seem to be directly surveyed.  The Texas survey breaks the year down into two six-month periods, and annual landings estimates are not available for six months after year-end.

The National Academy of Sciences report that reviewed MRIP also briefly touched on the Texas Marine Recreational Fishing Survey, saying in part

“A full review of the Texas Marine Sport Harvest Monitoring Program is beyond the scope of this report.  However, based on a presentation to the committee about the survey and on discussions with regional partners and stakeholders it is questionable whether the estimates produced by Texas are comparable to those of the MRIP.  At the very least, it is highly advisable that the Texas survey be reviewed by an independent panel so that its applicability to regional fisheries assessment and management can be objectively assessed.”

That’s the academically polite way to say that the Texas survey data is suspect at best, and probably not very good, at least when compared to federal data.

Yet the CCA has the gall to rely on the Texas red snapper data, complain that the feds' data is bad, and apparently argue  that, because the federal and Texas data conflict, it’s the federal data that must be wrong.  

If the CCA is so concerned about accurate red snapper data, it should be working to have the Texas survey program reviewed as rigorously as the National Academy of Sciences has already reviewed MRIP.

But don’t expect that to happen, because the CCA almost certainly knows that, if it did, the Texas survey would be found badly wanting.

So much for the feds having bad data...

As far as greed goes, CCA's allegation is not merely hypocritical, it is just plain dumb.  After all, what would federal fishery managers gain from knowingly misrepresenting the health of the red snapper resource?  Neither the agency budget nor any agency employees profit when data shows that anglers exceeded their red snapper quota.  No one on the federal side receives any sort of bonus or commission for restricting recreational snapper landings.  For greed to exist, the greedy must thirst from some sort of reward.

For federal managers, no such reward exists.

The same, however, cannot be said for the Coastal Conservation Association; its members would surely benefit, at least in the short term, if anglers were allowed to kill more red snapper.

That’s why CCA has long sought to have the red snapper allocation changed to favor the recreational sector.  Sport Fishing Magazine reported CCA arguing that

“Any number of studies show that the greatest economic benefits to the nation are achieved by shifting allocation to the recreational sector, but our access to the best red snapper fishing ever is still shackled by 30-year old data.”

The same CCA greed led them to bring a legal action challenging NMFS’ decision to award the for-hire sector its own allocation of red snapper, after excessive private boat catches within state waters led to a federal red snapper season so short that the for-hire vessels were almost completely shut out of the fishery.

But perhaps the greatest example of CCA greed occurred when it, and other members of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, convinced then Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to reopen the recreational red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, even though it was clear that such reopening would inevitably lead to anglers overfishing their red snapper quota.

With a record like that, the CCA should think twice before calling anyone, much less federal fishery managers, greedy.

They should also take a long look in the mirror before complaining that NMFS has a “long history of…politics.”

Convincing the Secretary of Commerce to wrongfully reopen the recreational red snapper season was about as pure an act of politics as one may commit.

And the Coastal Conservation Association is all about convincing politicians to legislate in their favor.  Its website showcases its “advocacy team,” which includes a federal lobbyist.  That lobbyist has been very active promoting CCA-supported bills such as the so-called Modern Fish Act,  the badly misnamed Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act, the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act, and the so-called RED SNAPPER Act, all of which were designed to undercut federal management of red snapper, shift management to the Gulf states, or generally weaken federal fishery laws applicable to the recreational sector

Given that sort of political activity, to complain that NOAA Fisheries had a “history of…politics,” although what such history might be was never made clear, is ludicrous.

But that describes the Coastal Conservation Association, an organization that seems to exist solely to air its grievances with a federal fishery management system that’s doing its best conserve and manage the nation’s marine resources, including Gulf red snapper, from those such as the CCA who will never fail to stoop to the depths of hypocrisy in their efforts to win a bigger recreational kill.

As they sit in their Houston offices, lobbing baseless accusations at federal fishery managers, the folks at CCA fail to look inward, to examine themselves and their record on fisheries issues.

If they did, they might finally understand why Texans in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.