South Atlantic Red Snapper “Mini-Season” is a Chance for Recreational Anglers to Help Improve Data Collection

A red snapper recreational “mini-season” in the South Atlantic, running the first two weekends in November, has just concluded. This is the first time in three years that NOAA Fisheries has allowed red snapper to be pursued in the south Atlantic fishery. Commercial fishermen are permitted 75 pounds per day during November and December, out of a total allocation of 124,815 pounds. Recreational fishermen were allowed one fish per day during these first two November weekends.

Duly cautious, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council encouraged fishermen pursuing red snapper to use single hook rigs, move out of areas likely to hold red snapper as they approach their boat’s limits, and use descending devices on fish caught at depth, especially those showing signs of barotrauma. Reducing discard mortality is low-hanging fruit in the quest to maximize recreational opportunities in popular fisheries. Discard mortality for fish caught recreationally can stand near 40%[1] and often accounts for a high fraction of overall removals.

The announcement of this short 2017 season was a surprise to many, and it seems to be part of a broader loosening of restrictions on southeastern fisheries under Wilbur Ross’s Commerce Department. Recreational anglers who have caught red snapper (mostly as bycatch) in the south Atlantic fishery in recent year s have reported that the population has exploded, anecdotally suggesting that limited harvest might be justified.

Yet as with all fisheries management, the future of the South Atlantic red snapper fishery, and access to it, must be based on the best available science, not mere anecdote. Yet perhaps the silver lining in this recreational “mini-season” will prove to have been the opportunity for fishermen and managers to gather more accurate data about the health of the stock. To that end, and in addition to the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has partnered with the Snook and Gamefish Foundation, together with the information technology firm Elemental Methods, to develop an online portal ( where anglers can voluntarily report their catches.

Robust and sustainable access to our marine fisheries depends on prudent management. Prudent management is grounded in good science. Good science is grounded in robust and reliable data sets. And in this case, collecting good data depends upon the willingness of recreational anglers to help collect it. Better data collection is another piece of low-hanging fruit in the quest for longer recreational seasons.

In many respects, for recreational anglers, the future is in our own hands. Cultivating a mindset and the accompanying habits that put our fisheries resources first will ensure that those resources continue to recover, and that they will still be around for future generations of anglers to use and enjoy.


Tony Friedrich Testimony on Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.



SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

My name is Tony Friedrich. I am a life-long recreational fisherman currently residing on the Eastern Shore of Maryland’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay. From 2009 to 2016, I was the Executive Director of CCA-Maryland. We advocated for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL from the EPA. We protected forage species because 70% of resident striped bass had mycobacteriosis from malnutrition. We were leaders for striped bass conservation and also lead the charge of reasonable speckled trout regulations. I’ve seen good and bad fisheries management decisions, and I’ve seen fish populations either recover or crash as a result. In my experience, those failures always stemmed from one problem – a failure to put the resource first. Often, these bad decisions were possible because of a lack of strong rules, or because political pressure prioritized more fishing now instead of the health of the fish stock. Recently, there’s been more and more pressure to make it even easier for those bad decisions to happen. Decision-makers should resist these calls to weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act, since their goal – your goal – should be the same as mine: to make sure I leave this country’s natural resources in better shape than I got them, so that my children and grandchildren can love the outdoors like I do. I’ve dedicated over 20 years of my life to that.

My family came to this country and thrived because its abundant natural resources gave us food, freedom, and opportunity. In the mid 1700s, my decedents sought refuge from the Seven Years War, and carved out a life in the marshes of Louisiana. The natural resources provided them a chance to live free and make a better life. You will never find people who care more for the natural resources of America. The land and sea gave them an opportunity to prosper.

My first memories are fishing with a cane pole for bluegills at a farm pond in rural Tennessee. Since then, there has never been a single moment when my heart wasn’t firmly planted in the outdoors. I tell time by the tide and understand the habits and needs of fish far more than I ever will understand humans.

I am incredibly fortunate to have spent so much of my life working with fishermen to protect the natural resources we care about. I’ve sat on countless councils, advisory boards, and committees over the last
twenty years and for almost eight years while I was the Executive Director of CCA-Maryland. Through CCA, I worked with large groups of recreational fishermen, listening to their concerns and acting on them through grassroots advocacy. From the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, I used my influence to better the resource with the help of a small army of dedicated volunteers that believed in me and putting the resource first.

The fishermen I know care about conservation. We worked tirelessly on habitat issues, forage species conservation, and improving scientific methods and practices. We broke “the rules” by working hand in hand with environmental groups. My philosophy was simple: if you put the fish first, everything else works out. Too often, you see people fighting over their slice of the pie, always wanting a bigger slice even it means taking it from someone else, hurting the resource, and ignoring, or worse, defaming, the best available science. I tried to help folks understand that if you make the pie bigger, we’d all get along. It’s only through working together, bringing recreational and commercial fishermen, scientists and managers to the table, and making decisions that consider the long-term health of the resource, that we can all win.

The National Marine Fisheries Service released a survey in 2013. The survey looked at the attitude and preferences of saltwater recreational anglers from every coast. Almost ninety percent of the anglers valued spending time with family and friends more than any other aspect of the sport. Eighty percent of those surveyed just wanted to catch fish. Importantly, less than forty percent wanted to fill their limits every time out. This falls directly in line with my experience with the recreational sector. The bulk of fishermen want to encounter fish during their trips. Harvesting these fish is far less important. We fish for the experience.

So now you know who we really are. But, I sit here today to speak for the resource because it needs a voice. It needs a voice to remind decision-makers that things were far worse in the not so distant past. It needs a voice that says there are so many people in coastal communities that rely on a healthy resource. Frankly, there needs to be a voice of reason.

We’ve made progress towards sustainable fisheries, but that’s now in jeopardy
Prior to 1996, and the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), New England groundfish, red snapper, and summer flounder were on the verge of disaster. Pursuant to standards established by SFA, 86 different species were declared overfished. But thanks to that law and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act passed in 2007 (Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA), things started to slowly get better. Measures were put in place to set up annual catch limits (ACL) based on science that prevent overfishing. Depleted stocks were put into rebuilding plans to restore them to sustainable levels. As of June 30, 2017, only 30 of stocks are still on the overfished list, and most of those are either highly migratory species or part of the New England groundfish stock.

It is hard to think of another a law that has such a positive impact in such a short time frame. When you dig a little deeper, you begin to understand that MSA’s robust system of standards and stakeholder participation empower decision-makers to make the right decisions. All too often lately, we hear complaints about how catch limits negatively impact the economy, and are unfair to recreational fishermen. But when stocks decline because of overfishing, businesses fail, communities suffer and there’s less fishing for everyone.

Gulf of Mexico red snapper and Mid-Atlantic summer flounder are somehow now the rallying cries for those who seek to weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act. But the irony is, neither species would be available to catch if not for the catch limits and rebuilding plans required by the MSA.

It is an accurate statement when people say that they have never seen more red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Red snapper stocks crashed in the 90’s. It has been more than 50 years since the stock was truly healthy. The stock has recovered well in the past decade, but it still has a long way to go. And yes, the federal red snapper season in the Gulf of Mexico is short, but that’s not the fault of MSA. The recreational sector has consistently overfished red snapper. The average size of the fish is growing. State seasons take 70-80 percent of the recreational quota, leaving very little for the federal season. As an example, Texas has a 365 day season with a four fish limit. Then, the states and some Gulf anglers get upset when the season in federal waters is shortened. Instead of solving the problems of overfishing and long state seasons, people are attacking the National Marine Fisheries Service and MSA. In reality, everyone should be thanking them from the return of the iconic fish.

The numbers tell the story. In 1990, red snapper landings were just slightly over 4 million pounds. By 2000, the landings increased to almost 10 million pounds. In 2014, the landings were just short of 16 million pounds. We are watching a success story in the making. Red snapper spawning potential hasn’t been this high since 1968. However, red snapper can live to be 50 years old. The oldest fish are the most valuable to the resource.

A 5 year old red snapper produces 8x the eggs of a three year old and a 10 year old produces 33x the eggs of a 3 year old. Since red snapper stocks are managed on spawning potential and snapper are long lived, rebuilding will take a while. Right now, the bulk of the population is about 10 years old. The numbers are rising but we have to be patient because that is what the biology of the fish demands.

Likewise, summer flounder was chronically overfished at the end of the 20th century. I’ve seen that population ebb and flow over the last twenty years. Every single time we’ve taken cuts, we’ve seen improvement. In 2016, stock assessment updates indicate that fishing mortality exceeded the threshold by 26%. The spawning stock biomass is only 58% of the target and sits only 16% above the threshold. The overall biomass has been trending downward since 2010. This has been driven by low recruitment and also illegally harvested flounder that may have resulted in large overages of the fisheries annual catch limit. New York and New Jersey caught 88% of the total quota in 2016. The two states totaled 4.771 million pounds while the coast wide quota is 5.42 million pounds. Science told us that drastic reductions in harvest are needed. New Jersey just went out of compliance with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s summer flounder management plan. New Jersey fishermen created a narrative that reductions would destroy the industry. So, we have a state that has the lion’s share of the fish and may now be overharvesting, too.

More flexible systems fail to manage sustainably
We hear an awful lot from those who claim to represent the recreational sector about the need for “flexibility.” If you want to see flexibility in action, look no further than the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). ASMFC isn’t held to the same standards as the eight regional councils established through MSA. ASMFC can ignore overfishing and is not required to rebuild overfished stocks. The results of this “flexibility” are much less impressive than fisheries regulated with annual catch limits and accountability measures.

Striped bass on the Atlantic coast, which is not managed under MSA, is a good example for why sustainable limits are needed. In 1986, the stock was collapsing. East Coast anglers made only 300,000 trips. Rather than address the issue when the first signs of decline became apparent, ASMFC bowed to political pressures to do nothing, and waited until severe measures were necessary. A full moratorium was put in place in federal waters, and several states closed their seasons as well. The stock started to recover, and was declared rebuilt in 1995. Immediately, the number of striped bass trips jumped to 5,000,000. By 2007, the number of trips was a staggering 10,500,000. During that timeframe, the coast wide creel limit stayed at two fish at a 28”minimum size limit; the creel limit never changed. . The lack of an annual catch limits leaves striped bass very vulnerable to overfishing. Annual catch limits allow the managers to respond more quickly to changes in the fishery. However, striped bass is managed by mortality rates, an “alternative” management measure many tout today as the way forward. But what it means is we can’t compare our catch to a sustainable limit at the end of each season – we have to wait years for stock assessments to tell us how the stock is doing. While we are waiting, we are still fishing at the same rates. This leaves striped bass in a situation where it takes years to acknowledge overfishing and even longer to address it. Currently, striped bass numbers are declining again. The spawning stock biomass is hovering just above the threshold to be declared overfished. Trips have fallen to just over 6 million. If we want to support the $115 billion dollar recreational industry and the 800,000 jobs it supports, we should focus on stable and abundant fish populations that are managed by science-based annual catch limits and for the benefit of the general population.

And it’s not just striped bass that is in decline under ASMFC’s more flexible management system. Weakfish populations are so low that there might not be enough genetic diversity left to support a viable stock. Weakfish were once a staple of the Chesapeake Bay. Every tackle shop had rows and rows of local lures called “trout bombs” lining the aisle. You could go out and have a reasonable expectation that you would catch weakfish from the mouth of the Potomac to north of the Bay Bridge. In 2002, the weakfish population dropped below the spawning stock biomass threshold. In 2009, a stock assessment was completed that showed weakfish population at 3% of an unfished stock. It took seven years to begin to address the plummeting population of weakfish under ASMFC. We kept the same creel and size limits in place during that time period knowing all the while that the population was in serious trouble. The years of inaction decimated the population to a point where draconian measures had to be implemented to save the stock. I’d much rather make minor adjustments to harvest on an annual basis rather than see a stock collapse. After all this, ASMFC still refused to take the advice of scientists and close the fishery. If they had taken this action, the stock might have recovered by 2020. Now, we don’t know if it ever will.

The case of spot is no different. Spot are managed on abundance and harvest metrics know as a TLA, not annual catch limits. The TLA (Traffic Light Analysis) is a precautionary management tool that identifies trends and suggests management options. It is not as effective as annual catch limits. Spot abundance is on the decline. The first ever coast wide stock assessment is currently under review. In the meantime, spot have become the number one bait for striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay. It is not uncommon for anglers to go out with hundreds of spot in their live wells. The TLA and stock assessment process lacks the regulatory strength and timely response necessary to account for trends in increased effort.

Please, take it from me and the rest of the recreational anglers of the Chesapeake Bay, you don’t want to use ASMFC as a model. American eel, American shad, horseshoe crabs, and tautog are also on the decline. ASMFC staff and scientists are top notch, but ASMFC as a governance body is not bound by MSA. There are no ACL’s or accountability measures. They have plenty of flexibility. There is no legal authority to follow science even for setting rebuilding timelines. It doesn’t work.

The science is sound and better than it has ever been, but there’s room for improvement
Accurate and timely catch information is critical to making effective fisheries management decisions. For the recreational sector, that catch and effort data is provided by MRIP (Marine Recreational Information Program), a national program overseen by NMFS but in nearly all cases is implemented by states. While MRIP isn’t perfect, it was recently reaffirmed as both legitimate and accurate by the National Academy of Sciences. Yet MRIP is being called into question by the same people asking for more flexibility. Anyone who remembers MRFSS (Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey) should embrace MRIP. Under MRFSS, phone numbers were taken from a phone book. The first question in the survey was “Do you fish?” Currently, under MRIP, every angler is issued a FIN (Fishery Identification Number) thus supplying managers with a database of actual fishermen.
Gathering recreational data is hard. Recreational fishing involves large numbers of individuals fishing from many different locations, making it very difficult to estimate the number of fish caught. But MRIP is doing a decent job, according to the National Academy of Science: “MRIP has made significant improvements in gathering information through redesigned surveys, strengthening the quality of data.
Although many of the major recommendations from the 2006 report, “National Research Council. 2006. Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.” have been addressed, some challenges remain, such as incorporating technological advances for data collection and enhancing communication with anglers and some other stakeholders.” We’ve come a long way from cold calls, and both the catch and effort data from MRIP has vastly improved. The system becomes more accurate as the number of surveys grows.

With that said one of the key problems in getting more in-season data is that the state survey programs use vastly different methodologies and send their data to MRIP at inconsistent times. There is a significant calibration effort needed to make sure we aren’t comparing apples to oranges, and this means the data coming out of MRIP is delayed. The one exception is the LA Creel program out of Louisiana, which uses the same design as MRIP but can survey with greater frequency. It is odd that critics of MRIP are broadly supportive of the LA Creel program. To improve MRIP, we should follow the advice of the National Academy of Sciences and improve communication, technology, and survey rates. In addition, state surveys could be improved and designed to better fit with MRIP, and all our data programs could be better funded. If recreational fishing is worth $115 billion dollars and supports 800,000 jobs annually, shouldn’t we be funding it properly?

This is a chance to make things better for fisheries
We have an incredible opportunity in front of us with a reauthorization effort. We have a chance to secure healthy marine environments for generations to come. The fishermen I know want MSA to be more robust. They aren’t interested in removing annual catch limits and they know that “flexibility” is a euphemism for overharvest. They are also keenly aware that state management would remove many of the safeguards in MSA and open the door to overfishing; just look at New Jersey and summer flounder under ASMFC. We should embrace the opportunity to further protect our future. As fisheries around the world collapse, 89% of our domestic federal fisheries are not overfished.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act is working. But we can make it even better. Keep annual catch limits in place, don’t allow for more flexibility, support angler-led innovation, and work within the system to improve and fund scientific research:

  • Keep annual catch limits and accountability measures – it is the single most effective tool that fishery managers have had over the last ten years. Ignore the rhetoric and look at the numbers.
  • Managers and scientists need more funding, not less, for better and more frequent stock assessments.
  • Implement better catch and effort data collection methods for the recreational sector. Innovative, angler-led electronic tools, like smartphone apps, show a great deal of promise.
  • Have an honest discussion about how to best protect critical habitat areas like the Louisiana marsh, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Everglades.

Let’s take a page out of Theodore Roosevelt’s conservation ethos and do the hard things now so we can reap the benefits for generations to come. Let’s not focus on next quarter’s results, let’s focus enabling the next generation to enjoy our natural resources.

My solemn prayer is that I can convince all of you that recreational fishermen are true conservationists. Our number one desire is to watch our children and grandchildren embrace the outdoor heritage that makes our country so unique. In the end, we just want to watch them smile from ear to ear as they are reeling in a fish.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this process. I am forever grateful for this opportunity and look forward to ensuring my heritage for generations to come.

Fisheries Management – a brief overview of Magnuson-Stevens Act

Fisheries management in the United States is an incredibly complicated undertaking.  First, fish are hard to count.  Ducks, deer, and other terrestrial creatures are fairly easy to assess.  The oceans are so vast and complicated that marine biologists have an incredibly difficult task determining the overall health of a stock.

Technology was taking a toll on the resources.  Boats and motors became more reliable.  The advent of sonar, GPS, and monofilament lines gave us an incredible advantage over the fish.  As a result, fisheries became chronically overfished by the latter half of the 20th century.  Our elected officials knew something had to be done.  To their credit, they began the arduous task of crafting a law to guide us into the future.

This law would have to account for commercial and recreational fishermen as well as coastal communities.  It would also have to tackle the science, politics and economics of the resource.  It is a balancing act between managing the fish for the future as well as providing enough of the resource to sustain all the people who rely on it for a living.  Quite an undertaking, wouldn’t you say?  Elected officials did their job and presented The Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act to Congress is 1975.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the main law that governs marine fisheries in U.S. federal waters.  The law is named after Warren G. Magnuson, former U.S. Senator from Washington state, and Ted Stevens, the former senator from Alaska.  It was first passed in 1976 and sought to stabilize our countries fisheries out to 200 miles from shore.

Before the passing of MSA, federal waters extended out 12 miles.  Beyond 12 miles, international fishing fleets worked the waters.  I still remember the stories from old salts about Russian trawlers off the coast of New Jersey dragging for summer flounder and sea bass.  MSA addressed that issue.  It also established eight regional councils tasked with developing fishery management plans (FMP’s).  The FMP’s must comply with MSA’s key objectives as well as the 10 National Standards.  Combined, these requirements provide principles that prevent overfishing, rebuild stocks, increase economic and social benefits, and ensure a supply of seafood.

Since 1976, Congress has twice made sweeping changes to the original MSA.  The first changes were made in 1996 with The Sustainable Fisheries Act and the second in 2007 called the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.   Measures are now in place to set annual catch limits (ACL’s) that are determined through stock assessments.  The stock assessment determines the health of the fishery and sets the ACL.  If an ACL is exceeded in any given year, there is a mechanism in place to account for the overage in catch.

So, how is MSA performing?  In 1996, 86 separate species were declared overfished.  Scores of species were disappearing.  New England groundfish, red snapper, summer flounder, and many others were on the verge of disaster.  Managers put the ACL’s in place after the 2007 reauthorization and true rebuilding began.  Currently, only 29 species are being overfished.  More notably, 89 percent of all fisheries that have an ACL are not being overfished.  That’s quite a turnaround in 20 years considering the biology of fish varies so dramatically.  Some species can live over 50 years with the oldest females being the most prolific spawners.  Recovery can vary greatly across species, yet the success stories keep coming.

As MSA ages, there will be more suggested reauthorizations.  In a country with so many laws that aren’t working, we need to value the ones that are effective.  MSA is a true success story that has passed the test of time.  It is our duty to be vigilant in the protection of MSA.  We must ensure a future for all fishermen through robust management safeguarded by a fair system of checks and balances.  MSA has guided us through dark times and we desperately need it to protect our heritage in the future.

Amendment 44 for Gulf Reef Fish

It is tough to keep your finger on the pulse of fisheries management.  The first hurdle is to understand the science, but you can’t stop there.  Once you wrap your head around how the fish are counted, you have to understand how the fish are managed.  One of the most common complaints in fishery management is in fact that the science is not adequate.  More often than not, that stems from a lack of understanding.   The science is relatively straight forward and tailored to the biology of any given species.  The management is a bit of a different story.

As an example, we can look at Amendment 44 for Gulf Reef Fish.  Amendment 44 is an approved action to revise the MSST (Minimum Stock Size Threshold) for seven species of reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico.  The species include gag, red grouper, red snapper, vermillion snapper, gray trigger, greater amberjack, and hogfish.   So what is MSST and why is it important?  MSST stands for “Minimum Stock Size Threshold”.  It is defined as “the spawning stock biomass level at which the maximum sustainable yield or proxy level can be taken on a continuing basis”.  MSST is a big factor in determining overfishing.  Overfishing is determined by the following formula. { (1-M) * Bmsy } M is the natural mortality and Bmsy is the stock biomass (egg production) level that allows the stock to produce MSY (maximum sustainable yield) on a continuous basis.  This ties the buffer to the natural fluctuations of fish populations.  If a fish lives a very long time, that has a natural mortality of 0.1, the MSST level would be set at 90% of the MSY level.  On the other hand, a short lived fish with a high natural mortality rate of .4, the formula allows for a much wide buffer between the MSST and MSY levels.  The lowest level of MSST allowed under the law is 50%.

There are two schools of thought.  Set MSST threshold as close as possible to MSY, that way you find out when a stock is overfished very quickly.  You are also bound by rebuilding standards because the stock will be officially overfished.  The other school of thought, set threshold well below MSY level.  This allows for more natural fluctuations.  However, most stocks will reach a situation where the number of the fish being removed actually exceeds the ability stock to create new fish.  This is called a recruitment collapse.  This is specifically why the law states that you can’t have an MSST under 50%.  If there is a wide buffer, the councils have time to rebuild the stock without adhering to strict timeframes mandated by being officially overfished.

You might ask yourself why anyone would want to set the MSST at a low level.  The risks are high that the stock will be overfished.  Furthermore, if the stock is declared overfished, it will really be overfished.  In the case of long lived fish, you would be looking at an extremely long rebuilding timeframe.

Amendment 44 had six different options for potential MSST revisions.  In the graph below, Alt 1 is status quo.  Green is a wider buffer for MSST than status quo.  Red is a narrower buffer for status quo.  Alt 3 was the original preferred option.  So, when you see a number in red, that means greater harvest as well as greater risk to substantially overfish.


Stock Alt 1 (status quo) Alt 2 Pref Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6
Gag 13% 13% 25% 15% 25% 50%
Red Grouper 20% 20% 25% 15% 25% 50%
Red Snapper 9% 9% 25% 15% 25% 50%
Vermillion Snapper 25% 25% 25% 15% 25% 50%
Gray Triggerfish 27% 27% 27% 15% 25% 50%
Greater Amberjack 28% 28% 28% 15% 25% 50%
Hogfish 25% 17.9% 25% 15% 25% 50%

In most cases, you will see a council decide on the middle of the road or preferred option.  The preferred option gives a little to the group who wants to harvest more while not putting the stock at risk.  Believe it or not, the option that was accepted was Alt 6.  These seven reef species will now be managed under the maximum allowable buffer by law.  Red snapper will have the greatest movement from a 9% buffer to a 50% buffer.  The longer lived species will suffer the most.  We are now completely at the mercy of the council to address any major fluctuations in these seven species.  It will be interesting to watch this unfold.  As states push for more rights to manage their own fisheries while increasing the MSST buffer to the maximum allowable amount, there’s an excellent chance that these species will be on the decline for years until they are finally declared overfished.  Once declared overfished, rebuilding will be incredibly restrictive due to the hole we are digging ourselves.

The Conservation Ethos of Recreational Anglers

The Red Snapper Wars in the Gulf of Mexico in recent years have been illuminating in many ways. If there is one thing that nearly everyone can agree on (and that’s a pretty big “if”), it is that the current management regime needs change. From a stock on the brink of collapse in the early 1990’s to a federal fishing season on the brink of collapse in 2017, fresh perspectives are sorely needed.

Anglers have been pursuing red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico since the middle of the 19th century. In the early days of the fishery, fishing effort couldn’t put a dent in the stock. But just as anglers were beginning to access the fishery in those days, railroads and the ice industry were making it possible to move fish to markets farther inland, creating a demand for Gulf seafood away from the coast, and thus turning fishing into a viable commercial enterprise. Yet there were still plenty of fish, and the stock remained resilient.

But increasing pressure didn’t come from commercial fishermen alone. The health of fish stocks, it turns out, is intimately connected to the abundance of another species: humans. As the human population of the Gulf region and the rest of the country grew, and with the invention and proliferation of the automobile, and then the highways and interstates to accommodate them, the number of anglers looking simply to enjoy a few days of saltwater and sunshine grew proportionately.

And of course red snapper are not the only game species to face increasing pressure from human utilization over the years. In fact, I can’t think of a single game species that hasn’t. Some have fared better than others. Populations of waterfowl and whitetail deer, for example, have come roaring back from near collapse in earlier decades of the 20th century.

On the other side of the ledger, one thinks of the American bison, hunted to near extinction in a few short years in the 1870’s. They have since come back, but to nowhere near the level at which significant utilization by humans would be possible. Or there is the Newfoundland cod fishery, abundant and productive until it suddenly collapsed, as it were overnight, in the early 1990’s. Only in very recent years has the stock begun to show possible signs of a creeping recovery, although at nothing close to a rate that would make for a sustainable fishery in the foreseeable future. One need hardly mention the fate of the passenger pigeon. Miles-long flocks of passenger pigeons are said to have blotted out the sun in the 19th century, and they were a wildly popular game species… until they weren’t. The last passenger pigeon in the world, Martha, died in the Cincinnati Zoo on September 1, 1914.

In every case, sportsmen have had a hand in the over-exploitation of fish and game, but sportsmen have also played a crucial role in the recovery of those species that have in fact recovered, leading the way in advocating for sensible and sustainable regulation. Unlike most politicians and activists, hunters and anglers have firsthand knowledge of fish and wildlife populations, habitats and foodwebs, predator-prey relationships, and the interconnectedness of it all with human communities. This is what has led so many sportsmen to become advocates for fish and wildlife through the years.

The case is no different in our time than it was in Theodore Roosevelt’s. Many of our fish stocks are doing well. Some, like red snapper, have recovered significantly from historic lows in the living memory of even some of the younger members of the fishing community. But the voices of recreational anglers still need to be heard. That has become abundantly clear, if it wasn’t already, in the red snapper policy fiasco that has played out this summer. From the original announcement of a 3 day season in federal waters, to the ad-hoc extension of the season to 39 days by the Secretary of Commerce, policy has been lurching from one extreme to another.

Fisheries and fishermen deserve smart, sustainable, and efficient management. For this to happen, recreational anglers need to equip themselves with the facts, keep their eyes focused on the ultimate goal of a healthy and sustainable resource, and let their voices be heard.

H.R.2023 A Fisheries Bill with Hidden Problems

H.R.2023 – Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017 is co-sponsored by Rep. Garrett Graves R-LA, Gene Green (D-Texas), Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and Rob Wittman (R-Va.).  It is an attempt to address some concerns in fisheries management in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic.  However, H.R.2023 is not only an effort to reallocate the resource, but also a one way ticket to the land of overfishing.  The bill stems from the never ending saga of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.   Recreational anglers certainly need some relief in the Gulf red snapper fishery.  But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Here’s the bill section by section and why is doesn’t pass the mustard.

Sec. 101. Process for allocation review for South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico mixed-use fisheries.

One of the ugliest parts of fisheries management is allocation.  It is something I tried to avoid at all costs.  Allocation and conservation don’t really mix well.  When you are arguing about who gets how much of the pie, you stop thinking about the health of the fishery.  This section calls for an allocation review within two years of the passage of the bill with additional reviews every three years.  The cost of this process is going to be staggering.  You will have each sector doing economic impact studies, all the while gobbling up valuable time and resources better spent in understanding the fish.

Sec. 102. Alternative fishery management.

This one has me scratching my head.  It could open up new exciting ways to conserve the resource. But, this is not the intention.  Alternative fishery management means no catch limits for recreational anglers.  A better way to put it is removing catch limits for certain species just for the recreational sector.  How so?  See Sec 105.

Sec. 103. Moratorium on limited access privilege programs for mixed-use fisheries.

Catch shares must be really bad if you want to place a moratorium on them.  Catch shares aren’t perfect and probably deserve an article unto themselves.  However, they do have merit and aren’t giving away a public resource to a private entity.  The commercial quota remains the commercial quota.

Sec. 104. Rebuilding overfished and depleted fisheries.

I think all of you understand that fish species biology differs greatly across the spectrum.  So why would anyone want to set a 10 year limit on rebuilding?  It does try to address that with the following language.

“10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish or other environmental conditions dictate otherwise; or

(II) the sum of the time in which the affected stock of fish is expected to surpass its maximum sustainable yield biomass level in the absence of fishing mortality, and the mean generation of time of the affected stock of fish”

Sec. 105. Modifications to the annual catch limit requirement.

This is the bad one.  ACL’s would not be required when we are fishing below the target.  So, there it is.  We are essentially removing the best tool we have.  Prior to ACL’s being mandatory, there were more than 80 separate stocks experiencing overfishing.  That number has dropped to under 30 with ACL’s in place.  We won’t have healthy fisheries when they aren’t managed with limits.  The bill would only be for recreational fishermen.  Essentially, allowing overfishing for one sector while having the other adhere to strict catch limits.  Doesn’t sound fair, does it?

Sec. 106. Exempted fishing permits.
Many new management practices need to be analyzed in limited capacities before becoming mainstream.  This would stifle any attempts at new management techniques.  So, EMP’s couldn’t be used to execute Sec 102 making Sec 105 an open door to overfishing.

Sec. 201. Cooperative data collection.

I applaud any attempt to improve recreational data collection.  Most of the problems we have with stock assessments could be resolved with better data collection methods from the recreational sector.  Technology could play a large role in getting a better handle  This section of the bill could go further to strengthen the mandate but at least there’s something positive.

Sec. 202. Recreational data collection.

Beyond the data collection, H.R.2023 is not in the best interest of healthy fish stocks.  It will reallocate the resource and remove the most powerful tool that managers have-ACL’s.  Our kids, coastal communities, and fisheries deserve something better than H.R.2023.  We need to go back to the drawing board and produce something that looks to the future for all by preserving our nation’s oceans.

If You’ve Seen One EFP You’ve Seen Them All… Right?

With all the recent uproar about red snapper and the management issues facing that fishery, I was concerned about some of the “facts” I was hearing about Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ Exempted Fishing Permit, or an EFP, as a possible solution to the limited amount of federal fishing days this year. I had never heard of an EFP before so I did some research to make sure I understood what this experimental program was trying to achieve and where it had come from.

Here are the facts about the proposed EFP. In order to test an electronic reporting system, LDWF requested approval to allow 150 participants to fish outside of the normal federal season and catch 25,000 pounds of snapper starting in 2018. In return for the opportunity to fish outside of the federal season, these participants would report their catch using a smart phone app. This data would then be verified using Louisiana’s current data collection system, LA Creel. This smart phone app would give data collectors almost real time information on the red snapper being caught and thus prove to the federal government, who currently manages the red snapper fishery, that Louisiana could provide accurate data of the catch and be trusted with managing the state’s red snapper fishery out to 200 nautical miles (NM) as opposed to the current state season allowing Louisiana recreational anglers about 270 days on the water out to 9 NM.

When LDWF introduced this pilot program, the Coastal Conservation Association of Louisiana (CCA) and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) representatives opposed this program. Opponents of the EFP called the EFP an attempt to privatize a public resource and an attempt to give a few individuals an opportunity no one else would be getting. The opposition had tag line after tag line ready to fire at LDWF and this program and were relentless in their efforts to make sure it died on the vine. Articles like this one and this one show the opposition were ready to make unfounded comparisons to kill this program. This experimental program was neither a regulation nor was it law; in fact it was just a two-year experiment. It was not designed to test limited entry, individual fishing quotas, or privatizing a public resource. It was an experiment to test electronic reporting.

What was confusing was why these groups were so opposed to an experimental program trying to achieve what recreational anglers had been asking for, more days in federal waters and more flexibility to fish when they wanted? What I have recently learned may shed some light on their opposition.

Earlier versions of EFPs promoted by environmental groups have attempted to introduce a fish tag program. These earlier versions were going to give recreational anglers who bought a fishing license a certain amount of tags for red snapper that could be fished anytime of the year in federal or state waters. CCA representatives made sure to slam this concept into the ground because they didn’t want a tag program for red snapper because they believed it wouldn’t give every angler enough fish to catch throughout the year. This article illustrates that point.

Could it be that the proposed EFP was a case of guilty by association? When LDWF tried to introduce this latest version the opposition thought it was another attempt at a tag program and were not willing to give it a fair chance since they believed it was the same as earlier iterations. The irony is that those who opposed this program are asking for exactly what this program is trying to provide. They support legislation seeking to improve data collection and management, and they purport to support state management of the red snapper fishery out to 200 nm.

The EFP would have used a subsample of fishers and a subsample of fish. Experiments are always conducted on smaller portions of a population as it is impossible to experiment on the whole population of anglers using the entire population of fish. The detractors of this EFP are so focused on the subsample of anglers and fish utilized in this experimental program, that they cannot see the true purpose is to test electronic reporting. So, in trying to kill a program they think is bad they are possibly killing their chances at achieving their own demands for the red snapper fishery by relying on the whims and vagaries of the U.S. Congress and not a state that is trying very hard to get the problem solved.