SOUTH ATLANTIC RED SNAPPER: THE CIRCUS COMES TO TOWN

 

I don’t know what it is about red snapper.  

I’ve fished for them on multiple occasions, and they’re nothing particularly special.  Just another bottom fish that’s common enough to provide reliable action for the for-hire fleet, and easy enough for the average private boat angler to catch without trying too hard, although finding the bigger fish on a regular basis can take some real skill.

They’re shaped something like the porgies we catch here in the northeast, and fight much the same way, although they can grow an order of magnitude larger and pull quite a bit harder as a result.  But when you compare them to some of the other fish available to boats fishing out of the same ports, species like amberjack, yellowfin tuna, cobia, or wahoo—not to mention pure gamefish like tarpon, billfish, and even swords—snapper are clear also-rans, lacking the strength, speed, size and/or pure athleticism to .make the first team.

Yet I’ll argue that no other single species—not Atlantic cod, not any of the Pacific salmons, nor bluefin tuna, striped bass, red drum, summer flounder, swordfish, nor any other fish one might think of—has done as much to disrupt the fishery management system as the red snapper has.

The fight over red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico spanned three decades or more, and it’s not over yet.  It saw federal fishery managers rebuild a very badly overfished stock—spawning stock biomass had fallen below five percent of its unfished level—to something not very far below its biomass target , despite the efforts of recreational fishing organizations and the recreational fishing industry, organized under the banners of groups such as the Coastal Conservation Association, American Sportfishing Association, and Center for Sportfishing Policy which, to perpetuate anglers’ overharvest, did everything in their power to obstruct and delay federal fishery managers’ rebuilding efforts.

As we see more and more troubling reports suggesting that Gulf red snapper stocks may be suffering from too much recreational fishing pressure, the same recreational advocacy groups are calling for more state autonomy in managing the red snapper resource, and arguing that state estimates of recreational red snapper landings, which are generally lower than those produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service and so allow longer seasons in which more fish can be killed, should replace the federal data.

Now, the same circus that has beset the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery for so many years is pulling up stakes and moving, tent, showmen, clowns, and all, into the South Atlantic, where another recreational red snapper fishery will inspire it to put on a brand new show.

In truth, it’s not precisely accurate to say that the red snapper show in the South Atlantic is “brand new.”  A case could be made that it was actually South Atlantic red snapper, and not those in the Gulf, created the impetus for formerly conservation-oriented individuals and organizations, who had previously had a very good record of working with federal fisheries managers and for rebuilt fisheries, to take an “anglers’ rights” tack that would eventually lead them to make federal fisheries managers their prime boogeyman, and exchange their commitment to future abundance for one that emphasized full coolers now.

The South Atlantic's problems started in early 2008, after SEDAR—the South Atlantic Data, Assessment, and Review process—released SEDAR 15, which included an assessment of the South Atlantic red snapper stock,  It declared

“The assessment indicates that the stock has been overfished since 1960 and overfishing is currently occurring…

“The fishing mortality (F) is compared to what the fishing mortality would be if the fishery was operating at the proxy level for maximum fishing (F_40%).  The ratio of F/F_40% suggests a generally increasing trend from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, and since 1985 has fluctuated around a mean near 14.  This indicates that overfishing has been occurring since 1960 at about 14 times the sustainable level, with the 2006 estimate of F/F_40% at 12.021.  [emphasis added]”

Spawning stock biomass had been fished down to just 3 percent of its unfished level.

It was pretty clear that such level of overfishing could not continue for long, particularly with the spawning stock biomass so low, and in 2009 the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed shutting down the commercial and recreational red snapper fisheries for 180 days, with the possibility that the closure might be extended for another 186 days after that.

The recreational fishing industry, and many recreational fishermen, did not like that idea.  They were also concerned that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council was contemplating a further step, completely shutting down a large section of ocean bottom to all fishing, because so many red snapper were being killed by anglers targeting other species that regulations restricting red snapper landings alone would not be enough to end the overfishing.  On October 23, 2009, an article appeared in the Florida Times-Union/jacksonville.com that described the recreational position this way.

“Because fishermen catch a lot of snappers accidentally while targeting other species, the management council is considering four different plans for shutting down any fishing that might lead to those accidental catches, called bycatch.  The plans affect different sections of the ocean, but they all apply to nearly every one of about 70 fish the council lumps together as the ‘snapper grouper management complex’ because they’re found in similar locations.

“That last step has people in the fishing industry stunned and alarmed…

“Calling the potential rules ‘unprecedented in their depth and scope,’ an executive of the nonprofit Coastal Conservation Association asked federal officials in July to revisit the idea.

“The association, started decades ago by recreational anglers, has a long history of championing fishing regulations, including a net ban Florida voters approved in 1994.  But it has balked at the snapper proposal, questioning whether it’s based on good science.

“’In this special instance where the potential economic ramifications are so severe, we believe there must be another review,’ the association’s government relations chairman, Chester Brewer, wrote to a regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

“Florida Sportsman magazine founder Karl Wickstrom, a leading advocate for Florida’s net ban in the 1990s, joined the new debate by writing in his magazine’s November issue that federal scientists are ‘cherry picking’ data to support drastic solutions.  Two scientists also critique the management council’s study of snapper populations in the same issue.”

Which is sort of what happened, although the article leaves a few important things out.

I was a very active member of the Coastal Conservation Association back then, and sat on its National Executive Board.  The South Atlantic red snapper issue spawned a sort of crisis of conscience for the organization, that forced everyone to take a look at whether the values they and the organization espoused were honestly held, or were merely something they gave lip service to, but didn’t truly believe.

Prior to that time, CCA unabashedly declared that it “put the fish first,” and had a strong record of supporting management measures that would help to conserve fish stocks.  But when you started to look at the measures that it supported, it didn’t take long to note that most of those conservation measures restricted the commercial, rather than the recreational, fishery, or impacted anglers who fished for things such as summer flounder or striped bass, rather than anglers in the Gulf States or South Atlantic, where the overwhelming majority of the Association’s anglers were located.

The South Atlantic red snapper issue was the first one that could have resulted in severe restrictions being imposed on recreational fishermen in CCA’s core membership states, and while it’s always easy to conserve someone else’s fish, conserving your own is a much harder thing to do.

And it wasn't at all clear that CCA members were willing to accept the hardships and do it.

In addition, the aforementioned Karl Wickstrom had a lot of clout among Florida’s anglers in those days, due to the influence of his Florida Sportsman magazine, and while he was all for restricting the commercial fleet, his advertising revenues came from the recreational industry, which perhaps influenced him to vehemently oppose the proposed red snapper rules.

So, while there was divided opinion among the leadership of CCA’s Florida chapter, with some supporting the NMFS proposal and others, including some of the founding members and the executive director, opposed to such restrictions, it was generally recognized that if CCA Florida supported NMFS on the issue, they would probably suffer Wickstrom’s wrath, which would have a dire negative impact on the organization's membership and fundraising efforts.

I was driving to dinner with the aforementioned Chester Brewer one night, and asked why CCA Florida wasn't willing to do the right thing and support meaningful restrictions on the red snapper fishery, regardless of what Florida Sportsman might say.  Brewer looked back at me wide-eyed and said something like "B..but it's KARL WICKSTROM!" as if I was suggesting he insult the reborn Messiah, and I understood that there was no point continuing that particular line of conversation.

Thus, conscience and principle yielded to inside politics and organizational economics, and CCA became an ever more aggressive opponent of federal red snapper management, both in the South Atlantic and in the Gulf.  That loss of principle eventually led me to walk away from the organization, although I wasted a few more years before I left, trying to make an appeal to an organizational conscience that had died long before.

Now, after honing its skills at opposing federal red snapper conservation efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, CCA and various other fishing industry groups have returned to the South Atlantic, hoping to frustrate federal conservation efforts there.

Much has changed since the 2008 stock assessment found the South Atlantic red snapper stock at a dangerous low.  Federal management measures have helped to rebuild the stock, which is no longer overfished, thanks in part of a very sharply reduced recreational red snapper season—this year’s season lasted only two days—and a very small commercial quota.  But overfishing continues, and it is still largely due to recreational red snapper bycatch when the season is closed.

And NMFS keeps getting sued for not getting that recreational overfishing under control.

A little over a year ago, Tilman Gray, a commercial fish buyer in North Carolina, and Slash Creek Waterworks, a commercial fishing operation in the same state, sued the federal government over its failure to end recreational overfishing of the South Atlantic red snapper stock.  Knowing that it was in the wrong, NMFS didn’t try to fight the action, but instead agreed to publish a rule ending such overfishing by June 6, 2025.

Pursuant to that agreement, NMFS proposed a draft Amendment 59 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper/Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic, which recognized what managers already knew in 2009—that it is impossible to end recreational overfishing of South Atlantic red snapper without addressing the problem of recreational bycatch in the closed season.  So the proposed Amendment 59 would have closed an expanse of ocean off Georgia and northern Florida to all bottom fishing for three months each year, in return for a longer recreational red snapper season and a near-tripling of the recreational and commercial red snapper quotas, as fish previously wasted as bycatch would be converted into landings that people could take home and use.

As might be expected, the same crowd that fought federal red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico had no use for the proposed Amendment 59.  The American Sportfishing Association, concerned that the Amendment might cause its members to lose some income (and completely unconcerned about the recreational overfishing, since it generates tackle sales), said 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 the Coastal Conservation Association, true to its new mission of advocating for “anglers’ rights” and undercutting the federal fishery management system whenever the opportunity arises, whined

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

And, of course, between the time that NMFS agreed to settle the Tilman Gray lawsuit and end overfishing, and the time that Amendment 59 was released, a new administration took over the White House, which had implications for the nation’s fisheries policy, too.  With the monetization of the nation’s natural resources now trumping conservation considerations, the current leadership at the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NMFS has different priorities than did the people whom they replaced.  Thus, when Amendment 59 was finally released, it did not impose any closures on the recreational or commercial fisheries.  Instead, the final Amendment 59 increased the annual catch limit of South Atlantic red snapper, while making small reduction in both the commercial and recreational quotas.  The final Amendment also moves the goal posts for what's deemed "sustainable," increasing the overfishing limit for South Atlantic red snapper to the average level of landings for the years 2021-2023, which is probably a pretty good strategy for keeping landings somewhere close to the overfishing limit, even if it might not be the best way to conserve the stock.  And, by the same sort of impeccable logic, the final Amendment will give anglers two days, instead of one, to catch their reduced quota, even though they managed to overfish last year with only a one-day season in place.

There’s probably good reason to believe that the final Amendment 59, even with its newly inflated overfishing limit, probably won’t end recreational overfishing of the South Atlantic red snapper stock.  At least, enough people seem to believe that, that NMFS is getting sued once again.  Commercial fishermen are asking a court to compel NMFS to end recreational overfishing and put South Atlantic red snapper on a path to sustainability.  With respect to Amendment 59, the plaintiffs note that

“The red snapper annual catch limits established in the Amendment 59 Final Rule only serve to limit landings,”

but do nothing to limit the number of fish killed and wasted due to recreational bycatch.

Of course, CCA and the rest of the recreational fishing groups don’t want to take any responsibility for their own actions, so they have a different solution for the red snapper problem:  Move management responsibility from NMFS, which has a legal obligation to end overfishing, to the states, which have no such obligation, and may allow anglers to overfish the stock down to the very last snapper.  Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have already put laws in place leaving them ready to take over red snapper management should the possibility ever arise.  And as a recent article in Sport Fishing magazine notes,

“With state seasons passed into law, South Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources must now come up with the mechanisms to collect recreational data on these species, which is crucial, according to Ted Venker with the Coastal Conservation Association.

“Venker says Florida, Georgia and South Carolina are now on a path to actively manage these resources.  The Georgia Legislature set aside budget in its 2026 budget to establish a reef/migratory fish data collection program.  Florida obtained exempted fishing permits and is currently using them to conduct extensive studies of red snapper on its Atlantic coast.

“’It may seem like it doesn’t do much now, but it is an important domino that has to fall first,’ said Venker.  ‘There is a lot going on to wrest control from the feds beyond this bill.  This is just one piece of the puzzle, and in that regard this is a lot like how it went in the Gulf—lots of little steps finally got us where we wanted to go.’”

Of course, what the CCA and other angling groups never admit is that they didn’t “wrest control [of red snapper management] from the feds.”  NMFS still sets the annual recreational and commercial catch limits for Gulf of Mexico red snapper, and the Gulf [formerly, the Gulf of Mexico] Fishery Management Council is still solely responsible for the red snapper management plan and any amendments thereto.  

All that the states can do, pursuant to Amendment 50 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources in the Gulf of Mexico is, in the words of the Gulf Council, is exercise

“some management authority for recreational fishing of red snapper by private anglers in federal waters to the Gulf states.  Each state is allocated a portion of the red snapper private angling quota and has authority to set the private angling fishing season, bag limit, and minimum size limit (between 14 and 18 inches).  If the landings of a state exceed that state’s quota, the state’s quota will be reduced by the amount of the overage in the following year.”

That’s hardly wresting control from the feds, but rather merely allows the states some flexibility to carry out the federal management plan.

But we’re nonetheless seeing the recreational advocacy groups going through the same political machinations in the South Atlantic that we saw years ago in the Gulf, trying to put pressure on NMFS and essentially extort it into making concessions.  Thus, we see the governors of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida writing a letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, seeking the same sort of exempted fishing permits that ultimately led to the states’ being given some limited management flexibility in the Gulf.  In a letter, clearly worded to appeal to the current administration, the governors complain that

“Unfortunately, decades of inaction by career bureaucrats within the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), combined with actions in the waning hours of the Biden Administration to cut-off public access to the fishery, have hampered access for our recreational angling communities from exercising their God-given right to fish and support their local economies and way of life.”

And, of course, federal legislators also had to be a part of the show, with more than 20 Florida Senators and Representatives sending their own letter to Secretary Lutnick, in which, according to the Tampa Free Press,

“the delegation expressed their gratitude for [the Secretary’s] collaboration with President Trump in prioritizing American interests, specifically commending the rejection of proposed ‘bottom closures’ that would have severely impacted Florida’s fishing industry…The delegation argues that while the federal government has struggled with reliable data collection, Florida and other South Atlantic states possess the capability to gather accurate information, leading to better fishing o opportunities and continued conservation.”

And so the circus plays on, with the magicians doing their best to create illusions of federal incompetence while the dancing bears write their fawning letters to the Administration, seeking to charm someone into granting a boon.

But in the end, the finale of this story may well belong to the clowns, who seek to capture their audience’s attention with inane acts that mock reality. 

The same clowns who pretend that the South Atlantic, with its high levels of recreational discard mortality, is just like the Gulf, where discard mortality remains fairly low.

The clowns who pretend that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act isn't still the law of the land.

The clowns who pretend that recreational bycatch, discard mortality, and the resultant recreational waste of South Atlantic red snapper will just go away because some wizard in Washington agreed to wave his or her wand and let states set the red snapper seasons.

Let’s assume that the recreational groups get what they want, and state managers in the South Atlantic are allowed to set the seasons, bag limits and, within set parameters, size limits for South Atlantic red snapper, as state managers currently set some aspects of red snapper management in the Gulf. 

Should that be allowed, NMFS will still have the responsibility of setting the overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch, annual catch limit, and commercial and recreational quotas for South Atlantic red snapper.

NMFS will still have to allocate portions of the recreational catch limit to the four South Atlantic states, and the states will presumably be required to pay back any overage should they exceed their annual allocation.

And Magnuson-Stevens will still require that

“Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry,”

that, within two years after being notified that a fishery is overfished, the relevant fishery management council

“shall prepare a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulation for the fishery to which the identification or notice applies, to end overfishing immediately in the fishery and to rebuild affected stocks of fish, [formatting omitted]”

and that the time for rebuilding such overfished fishery shall

“be as short as possible…and not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental considerations, or management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates dictates otherwise.  [formatting omitted]”

So even if the states get their way, and are allowed manage aspects of the South Atlantic recreational red snapper fishery, the strictures of Magnuson-Stevens will not go away.  The recreational waste, in the form of dead discards from bycatch in other fisheries, is still going to be deducted from the acceptable biological catch to determine the annual recreational catch limit, and without the states taking some sort of action to reduce the current high bycatch level, the annual catch limit will remain very small, and the recreational season will remain very, very short.

Yes, the states can try to lengthen their seasons, in an effort to convert dead discards into landings, but since not every red snapper released dies, trying to turn releases into landings will only serve to increase the overall harvest.  Given the need to prevent overfishing, anglers will never be allowed to take more red snapper home, unless they first get their waste under control.

But whether or not that ever happens, the circus will, of course, go on.

The bears will dance, and the magicians will try to create their illusions.  But be sure to keep watching the clowns, because they’re really the key to the show.