Federal For-hire Data Collection Program
There was an advisory panel meeting in February where a set of motions were passed unanimously by the AP. There have been two meetings and all the motions from both meetings have been passed without opposition. This is a pretty big deal since it was made up of a very diverse group of for-hire fishermen and women. Some of which were on the side of the lawsuit that ended the SEFHIER program 2 years ago.
During this Gulf Council meeting (April 2025) the council selected preferred alternatives in the document. The new program is set up very similar to the past SEFHIER program. The descriptions below reflect what is currently is selected as preferred:
Hail Outs: Hail Outs will be required prior to departure on for-hire fishing trips.
As you may remember, before SEFHIER was shut down we were working with the Council to reduce the burden on captains from having to hail out every time the boat moved. And that has been addressed in the new version of SEFHIER. The Council has selected an alternative in the current document that only requires captains to hail out when on a FOR-HIRE FISHING TRIP ONLY.
Trip Report Submission: You must submit your harvest reports before off-loading your catch.
Just as in the original program you are required to submit your harvest report prior to off-loading your catch. This is used as a tool in validation and to ensure accuracy in the report so not to rely on recall at a later time.
Did Not Fish Reports: Did Not Fish Reports are required for any week no fishing occurred.
Since the Council has elected to go forward without electronic monitoring in the new program the staff has concluded that the bare minimum to complete the effort validation is to have Did Not Fish Reports. Did Not Fish Reports are in weeklong blocks, and you will be able to submit a month’s worth at a time. If you do get a fishing trip and submit a Hail Out the system will automatically remove the Did Not Fish Report that was applied for that week.
This has been a requirement of the Headboat Survey for years now. Since the Hail Out and Harvest Report validates the trip happened, the Did Not Fish Report validates no fishing occurred. Effectively applying a mechanism in which to capture that data.
Economic Data Reporting: An annual random selection of 20% of the for-hire fleet will be selected to report economic data.
As you all know this was probably one of the most continuous issues people had with the original program. This was not only a long discussion held by the Council but also at the AP meeting. There will still be economic data required for some, and it will be voluntary for the others in any given year. The Council has elected to go the route of a “stratified random sampling design” for economic data in the new program. And what that means is annually 20% of the industry will be selected to be required to submit economic data on each harvest report. This minimizes the burden on the industry while still providing the economic data needed to provide scientific and management advice.
There will also be change to the verbiage used in the collection of this data. We made it abundantly clear that requiring the captain to submit a federal report with a specified specific fee amount under penalty of perjury could possibly create a big liability down the road. And quite frankly felt like an overreach. We discussed how barter, trade, and charitable giving of trips will not capture the cost of the service if we feel we will have to answer to a different agency about what we submitted on a federal report at a later time.
So, with that the staff is working on the final verbiage change of the old “trip fee” metric and will be using something like “marketed trip fee”, “estimated trip fee”, or “advertised trip fee”. The AP as well as the Council felt this would give enough leeway to address the concerns of many that had them in the first program.
The economic questions that will be required by those selected annually and voluntary for everyone else will be: “estimated trip fee” (or some iteration of that), “fuel used”, “fuel cost”, and a box to check if “fuel was not included in fee”. Below is more information on how all this evolved and was developed.
As we addressed this component in the development of the new program, we got a good window into how it was applied in the first place. It became quite evident that the terms economists used to define certain things in economic analysis borderline somewhere between an ancient alien language and such complexity you would need a bachelor’s degree to understand how it is done.
The economists gave a presentation and answered questions in detail at the AP meeting as well as the Council meeting. And in that presentation, we found there to be a serious lack of information on the economic analysis for our industry. We first realized that the frequency and method used to collect this information was only every decade or so and was very sparse in nature. To the point we all could see the apparent need for us to collect this information, but we did not lose sight of the concern of the liability it placed upon someone submitting a federal report under penalty of perjury.
With that in mind we drilled down on what exactly needed to be collected and why. During this process it became apparent that, like all data collectors of any kind, they wanted as much refined data as they could possibly get. With that we honed in on what the minimal amount of information they needed to get to find the value of the industry overall, as well as a trip-by-trip basis of the economic data so that directed fishing trips data can be used to determine the value of the industry per fishery. To explain that better they want to know the economic data for trips during the Red Snapper, Gag or Red Grouper, or the Greater Amberjack season. So, when doing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) they can apply the proper economic data to a specific fishery.
In conclusion, it was a lot of discussion and back and forth, but it was needed to ensure we got buy-in from the industry while protecting the fishermen from a possible problem in the future all while providing what is required under the MSA. And once we get it passed the leadership in our industry will start working in DC to get the program funded.
(Written: April 2025)
