Red Snapper
The federal for-hire component, even with our supplemental season in November and December, only caught 74% of our annual allocation. Which will most likely lead to a longer season this year. They will be announcing the Federal For-hire season in the next few weeks.
The Gulf Council is slated to take final action on the change of the Federal For-hire Red Snapper start date at the June Council meeting. Making the opening of our Red Snapper season start date in 2026 the Friday before Memorial Day weekend next year (2026) and from then on out.
----------
There was also a Texas for-hire fisherman that brought up something during public comment that made some sense, which was moving the start date of the allocation for Red Snapper to April. So instead of Jan 1 thru December 31 it could run April 1 thru March 31. I commented on this during public comment as well, but I would think May 1 thru April 31 would be better for us in the Eastern Gulf. This is like what happened with Amberjacks a few years back.
The thought is that if we do have Red Snapper left over in the future, we would not be so time constrained to utilize it before the end of the Calendar year and would be able to have a spring season. This was only talked about during the public comment by a few of us and the Gulf Council did not discuss it but there were a lot of agenda items so there was not much room to do so. Just understand it most likely will come up in the future.
----------
During this Gulf Council meeting the State of Louisiana introduced a motion to begin work on a document to delegate Red Snapper management authority for the federal for-hire component to the respective 5 Gulf States. Including proposed management measures should include an option for individual states to opt-out of for-hire management authority. The federal for-hire component in those states that opt-out would continue to be managed under the federal system.
So, there is a lot to unpack there. And unfortunately, we did not get to give testimony or elaborate on it because they did it in the other business on the last day of the meeting in full council towards the end of the meeting. Which was clearly to not give anyone a chance to weigh in on it during public testimony. The council approved the motion, but staff was very clear there is so much on the slate for work with current documents it will be a bit before they can get on this document, so we do have some time.
And at face value it may seem… not the most terrible idea with the opt-out provision. But there is a lot to consider and there are reasons that could cause inequities between permit holders which would have the chance of litigation.
The Louisiana and Texas contingents have always dangled this carrot in front of the federal for-hire vessels offering longer seasons with tactics like longer seasons under their data collection programs and the use of biomass compared to anglers in the region.
The first thing we need to do is evaluate how the Gulf States are managing the Red Snapper fishery to begin with. In this most recent Council meeting each state presented their harvest reports and data from the past fishing year to the Council, which is part of the requirement of Amendment 50, which appropriated the authority for the Gulf States to manage the private recreational and state for-hire components of the Red Snapper fishery.
In these reports Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana consistently over the last couple of years showed a smaller average size fish and have increases in seasons lengths and one an increase in bag limit. The reduction in the average size fish is concerning. Since high grading and trophy fish fishing are part of the known private recreational component’s method of operations.
This data provides that the biomass is experiencing a reduction in older age classes of fish, and in that it lowers the spawning potential ratio of the biomass. Meaning the stock of fish do not have as many older fish which means the amount and the quality of the eggs produced each year is less efficient at building the stock back, which means future generation of recruitment classes will be less plentiful and productive. Leading to the stocks inability to recover from such long season durations.
There are other things that can contribute to a decline in recruitment. Environmental and water quality factors to name a few. But a more measurable factor is the removals taken each year. And that is seen in the continued extension of seasons. Not just in the states’ seasons but also in the for-hire season as well.
Now you might be wondering about Texas… And I will have to say a lot of people wonder about Texas. In Texas, their state water season runs year-round at 4 fish per person, and their federal season under Amendment 50 this past year ran for 98 days. In the landings report they showed the average weight in of total fish caught per “angler trip” which is an average of the fish weight caught by the average amount of bag limit retained. But when broken down it basically said during the federal season the average weight of fish caught was 5.6 pounds, and during their state water season the average weight of the fish caught was 8.1 pounds. Which is contrary to findings in all the other states and normal distribution of average sizes within the Red Snapper fishery. Most states concede that smaller fish live in their state waters as they have a higher level of fishing pressure and are targeted more frequently. Couple that with the difference in a 98 day – 2 fish bag limit federal season, to a 365 day – 4 fish bag limit state season you can see there are some kind of external factors not realized or displayed in the Texas data.
This is a clear indication that the States are managing for access and not what is best for the stock. Which is fine if access is all you care about but beating the stock back to what it can survive in compared to where it thrives is a far more sustainable path for the fishery and all of us that rely on a thriving fishery.
Just some food for thought. This is also a byproduct of the MSA. There is no mechanism that allows for the brakes to be put on when indicators are showing a depletion or reduction in the stock. The same law that requires them to reduce access and rebuild also says they also have to provide “optimum sustainable yield” which is a fancy way of saying if fish from the stock assessment are available they have to give us access to them.
Coming back to the idea about the Gulf States managing the for-hire component and where this came from because for years now things have been good. In Amendment 40 the for-hire vessels in a stable predictable season while maintaining equity in access per permit holder across the Gulf while being accounted for in the same manner consistently. Meaning you can sell or move our permits around the Gulf and there is no change in benefit no matter where you are fishing and there is continuity in the way your harvest is accounted. And in Amendment 50, the individual Gulf States have the authority to establish seasons and bag limits to best prosecute the allocation afforded to that specific state. Things should be good right?
Besides Texas, with their 365-day state waters Red Snapper fishing season, all the other Gulf States coincide their season start date with the federal for-hire start date of June 1st every year give or take a week or so. This has kept the peace and provides a fair enough start with access to localized fish available. That is until last year when the State of Louisiana opened their season in April. Creating a severe imbalance in access to localized fish and the business coupled to that access for the federal for-hire vessels in the state.
So, the State of Louisiana’s solution is to bring in the federal for-hire component under the umbrella of state management. Which is very convenient since they have wanted to anyway… why not make it so inequitable for the federal for-hire fishermen they have no other choice to save their business but to back the State’s motion to move their management authority under them. Its borderline gaslighting…
This is not a new idea in fact it was rejected by a majority of federal for-hire permit holders during the development of Amendment 50. Since there has really been no other discussion other than to start this process, we will have to wait and see what direction they try to take the document.
(Written: April 2025)
