Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Commercial Fishermen, Other Members of Seafood Industry Challenging NOAA’s Red Grouper Reallocation

May 11, 2022 — Last week SeafoodNews reported on NOAA’s Amendment 53, a new rule in the Federal Register regarding the reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. The final rule revised the annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs) for both the commercial and recreational sectors, reallocating 20% of the commercial red grouper quota to the recreational sector. The decision had commercial fishermen and others in the industry up in arms. But they’re not just sitting back. A lawsuit has been filed challenging the legality of the decision to reallocate the red grouper quota to recreational fishermen.

The lawsuit was filed late on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by A.P. Bell Fish Company, the Southern Offshore Fishing Association, and the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance.

“This case is about the government’s allocation of fishing privileges for catching red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico between two user groups,” reads the suit. “The challenged agency action takes fish away from the commercial sector, and gives them to the recreational fishing sector. But the recreational sector is wasteful, catching and throwing back millions of red grouper each year, of which hundreds of thousands die. Allocating more fish to the recreational sector will increase this waste, reduce the amount of fish available for consumption, and increase the risk of overfishing the stock. These outcomes are unlawful.”

The Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance (GCSA) made their opinions on NOAA’s decision very clear in an analysis that can be found here. Meanwhile, the recently filed lawsuit can be found here.

Read the full story at Seafood News

Gulf of Mexico commercial fishing groups sue US government over red grouper reallocation

May 11, 2022 — Gulf of Mexico commercial-fishing groups have filed suit against the U.S. government, alleging a reallocation of red grouper catch shares illegally favors the recreational-fishing sector.

The lawsuit, filed Friday, 6 May, challenges the National Marine Fisheries Service’s implementation of Amendment 53, which was announced on Monday, 2 May and which is set to come into effect 1 June, 2022. The new rule amends the fishery management plan for reef fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico so that the allocation of the red grouper catch to the commercial sector is lowered from 76 percent to 59.3 percent, while increasing the recreational catch-share from 24 percent to 40.7 percent.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

 

Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance Supports Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Red Grouper Quotas

May 9, 2022 — The following was released by the Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance:

Commercial fishermen and members of the Gulf of Mexico seafood industry have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of a recent decision by NOAA Fisheries to reallocate red grouper quota to recreational fishermen at the expense of the commercial fishery. The Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance (GCSA) supports the efforts by the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance, Southern Offshore Fishing Association, and A.P. Bell Fish Company to challenge this decision, in an effort to restore a fair allocation for commercial fishermen.

The lawsuit, filed late on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges recent red grouper allocations approved by NOAA as part of Amendment 53 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico.

The plaintiffs indicated they will seek expedited review.

Amendment 53 drastically reallocates the quota for red grouper. It increases the recreational share of the quota from 24 percent to 40.7 percent, while decreasing the commercial share from 76 percent to 59.3 percent. Simultaneously, the Amendment decreases the overall available red grouper quota in order to account for increased grouper discards from the recreational fishermen.

According to the lawsuit, this allocation “unlawfully benefit[s] the recreational fishing sector, harm[s] the commercial fishing sector and seafood consumers, and jeopardize[s] conservation,” while going against the conservation goals set out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the federal law governing U.S. fishery management. It notes that the Amendment is only the latest in a series of decisions showing “unlawful favoritism” to recreational fishermen.

GCSA has previously criticized Amendment 53 in its own analysis. GCSA specifically has criticized the Amendment for the flaws in the process that led to its adoption, the inadequate economic analysis that supported its allocation decision, and the legal precedents that the Amendment violates.

The complaint specifies ten causes of action, demonstrating that Amendment 53 violates:

  • Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard Four, which requires that allocations of fishing privileges “shall be…fair and equitable to all such [U.S.] fishermen” and “reasonably calculated to promote conservation.”
  • Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard Nine, which requires that “[c]onservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.”
  • Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 303(a)(11), which requires that any Fishery Management Plan “establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority—(A) minimize bycatch; and (B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided.”
  • Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 303(a)(15), which requires all Fishery Management Plans to “establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan) implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability.”
  • Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard One, which requires that “[c]onservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”
  • Legal requirements regarding the setting and review of optimum yield as specified in Magnuson- Stevens Act Sections 303(a)(3), 303(a)(4)(A), AND 302(h)(5).
  • Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard Two, which requires that “conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.”
  • Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard Eight, which requires that NOAA must “take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities.”
  • The Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
  • The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Related:
Despite Flawed Procedures, Economic Inaccuracies and Legal Precedents, NOAA Acts to Take Fish from Families, Markets, Restaurants and Consumers

Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance: Statement on Red Grouper Quota Instability

 

Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance: Statement on Red Grouper Quota Instability

May 5, 2022 — The following was released by the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance:

On Monday, May 2, 2022, NOAA Fisheries published a Final Rule for Reef Fish Amendment 53, which reduced the commercial sector’s allocation of the red grouper quota from 76% to 59.3%.

Yesterday, on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, NOAA Fisheries published a Proposed Rule to Modify Red Grouper Catch Limits that would, if implemented, slightly increase red grouper catch limits based on a new interim analysis (IA) that indicated a slight improvement in the health status of red grouper since 2019.

While a positive step, this latest action doesn’t fix the damage caused by Amendment 53.  In fact, exacerbates it.

Without the reallocation under Amendment 53, commercial fishermen should be receiving 76% of the new proposed 4.96 million pound annual catch limit (ACL) – which would have been an approximately 600,000 pound increase from the 2021 quota.  Instead, under the two actions NOAA Fisheries took this week, commercial fishermen will be limited to a 2.94 million pound ACL and 2.79 million pound Annual Catch Target (ACT).  This reduction represents a significant loss in commercial fishing access, millions of dollars in lost revenue to commercial fishing families, and hundreds of thousands fewer grouper servings available for the seafood-consuming public.

Furthermore, this new 2.79 million pound quota is still 210,000 pounds less than the quota level commercial fishermen were operating under prior to Amendment 53.

In reality, commercial fishermen have lost even more than that.  Reallocation to the recreational sector under Amendment 53 increases dead discards and commercial fishermen are forced to fish under a reduced catch limit to cover those discards.  So commercial fishermen are penalized twice: first by the reallocation, and second by lower overall catch limits to offset increased recreational discards.  In essence, commercial fishermen now have a smaller piece of a smaller pie as a result of Amendment 53.  If the allocation remained 76% commercial, fewer red grouper would be thrown overboard dead, and the catch level increase under the IA would be even larger than what is in this Proposed Rule.

Simply put – Amendment 53 is the “gift” that keeps on taking.  Commercial fishermen were penalized in Amendment 53 through a reduction in quota and now they are on the hook for subsidizing an even greater amount of recreational dead discards that could undo the progress this stock has made since 2019.  The proportional losses through Amendment 53 will carry on in perpetuity as the recreational sector wastes more red grouper by throwing them overboard dead.

The forthcoming slight quota increase, while generally a positive sign for the red grouper population, does not restore the commercial quota to the level it was in recent years and falls far short of what the commercial sector and seafood consumers would have access to without the reallocation from Amendment 53.

To be clear – we will give credit where credit is due, and we want to thank NOAA Fisheries for conducting this rapid IA in response to repeated concerns by commercial fishermen about the years-long process translating the results of a stock assessment into management, and the need for more real-time data collection and science-based decision making.

But this marginal quota increase does nothing to solve the fundamental reallocation and recreational mismanagement problems (dead discards, lack of census-based reporting) that landed us here in the first place.

 

Despite flawed procedures, economic inaccuracies and legal precedents, NOAA acts to take fish from families, markets, restaurants and consumers

May 2, 2022 — The following was released by the Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance:

Today, the U.S. Department of Commerce and NOAA Fisheries formally published their decision to take fish from working families, markets, restaurants and consumers, even though this decision comes as a result of flawed procedures, inaccuracies and inadequacies in their economic analysis, and numerous legal precedents which will be violated.

Amendment 53 to the Reef Fish Resources Fishery Management Plan as formulated by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council):

  • Will reallocate 20 percent of commercial red grouper quota to the recreational sector (a 32 percent decrease from what would have been allocated without the amendment) causing significant harm to restaurants, markets, distributors, processors, harvesters, and ultimately end consumers;
  • Will deny the citizens of the United States access to 1.2 million pounds of red grouper currently being caught annually by commercial fishermen and enjoyed by anyone who does not have the ability or opportunity to fish recreationally;
  • Will deprive restaurants of revenue from those landings, negatively affect the tourist industry, and deprive non-angler citizens of their access to Gulf of Mexico seafood resources.

During the public comment period, the Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance (GCSA) submitted an analysis conducted by respected independent experts in opposition to the proposed rule. In addition to our comments, seventeen major organizations registered their opposition to Amendment 53, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Restaurant Association, the National Fisheries Institute, the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance, and the Charter Fisherman’s Association.

On February 18th, public comments were due to NOAA Fisheries on the proposed rule for the implementation of Amendment 53 to the Reef Fish Resources Fishery Management Plan. On March 9, just 12 workdays later, Andrew Strelcheck, the regional administrator, approved the Amendment in a letter to Dale Diaz, chair of the Gulf Council. Given the typical length of time required by NOAA to conduct analyses, it is incomprehensible that the agency undertook a serious analysis of the comments submitted by GCSA and the numerous other organizations and individuals who raised serious concerns.

Instead, NOAA appears to have taken an “approve now, analyze later” approach.

THE GCSA REVIEW

GCSA’s expert panel analyzed the Gulf Council’s actions in the development of Amendment 53, and found significant problems, from three perspectives:

  • Process: flaws in the processes and procedures undertaken by the Gulf Council that led to its adoption
    • An analysis of the Gulf Council process under the supervision of Dr. Steve Cadrin, Professor of Fisheries Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, School of Marine Science and Technology, and past president of the American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists, conducted by Aubrey Ellertson Church, a graduate student at the same institution.
  • Economic: inadequacies and inaccuracies in the economic and environmental studies conducted
    • An economic analysis by Dr. Tom Sproul, Associate Professor of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics at the University of Rhode Island, who represents Rhode Island on the Committee for Economics and Social Science at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
  • Legal: the legal precedents that would be violated by implementation of the Amendment
    • A legal analysis by attorney Drew Minkiewicz, a partner in the Washington, DC law office of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. In his second decade of legal practice, he represents commercial fishing interests and maritime shippers. Prior to joining Kelley Drye, Drew served as senior counsel and staff director of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

PROCESS ISSUES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PROBLEMS

The review found these serious issues in the Gulf Council’s promulgation of Amendment 53:

  • The Gulf Council’s economic analysis in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) contains a pattern of assumptions and omissions that bias the cost-benefit analysis against commercial fishing and in favor of recreational fishing. Accordingly, an unbiased FEIS would come to the opposite conclusion, that recreational quota should be reallocated to the commercial fishery.
  • The Gulf Council’s analysis to calculate economic value for recreational fisheries included all value added from the time a fish was swimming freely below the waves until it was caught by a recreational fisher’s hook, but that Council analysis to calculate economic value of commercially-caught fish ended with the ex-vessel value at the dock, and ignored all additional value added from the dock to the restaurant plate or the market seafood counter.
  • Significant concerns exist on efforts to retroactively interrelate estimates of recreational fishing effort derived from the Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) with the Fishing Effort Survey (FES). These concerns emerged in the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Calibration Model Peer Review organized by NOAA Fisheries in 2017, and are expressed in the minority report on Amendment 53.
  • Anomalies in the record of the NOAA Fisheries analysis of the 2017 MRIP Calibration Model Peer Review indicating that the data from Florida private vessels most representative of recreational red grouper catch are not aligned with the macro assumptions used by the Council in the adoption of Amendment 53.

The circumstances leading to Amendment 53 arose from changes in the way that recreational fishing catch is estimated. Starting in 1979, data about recreational fishing effort was collected by phone survey. This method became less practical over time—due in large part to a decline in the use of landline telephones. It was replaced with the FES, a postal mail survey sent to a sample of residential households in coastal states. Between 2016 and 2017, NOAA Fisheries staff and independent consultants worked to develop a calibration model to re-estimate statistics produced by the phone survey.

During the 2017 MRIP Calibration Model Peer Review, NOAA Fisheries researchers were unable to explain the large difference in MRIP-FES catch estimates using covariates in the statistical calibration model. Reviewer Jason McNamee noted it was impossible to certify the accuracy of the predictions backwards in time. Neither of these difficulties are surprising given the difficulty of retrodicting data going back decades from just a few recent years of calibration data.

Members of the GCSA are concerned about an anomaly we have found in the official record of the 2017 MRIP Calibration Model Peer Review. In examining the records of the estimated retrodicted FES values (the recalculation of the historic numbers) against the previously existing CHTS values, and using what can be called the “Sesame Street analysis,” we see that that “one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong”:

  • The additional materials from the 2017 MRIP Calibration Model Peer Review panel contain a series of plots of the estimated retrodicted FES values against the previous CHTS values for each of the 17 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal states.
  • An examination of the plot of retrodicted FES values against previous CHTS values for private boat trips by Florida anglers – who represent the overwhelming majority of the Red Grouper recreational fishery – shows that nearly all the pre-existing CHTS values over the period 1986 – 2005 fall inside the confidence interval for the newly calculated MRIP-FES predictions.
  • The implication of this one-state anomaly is important. It implies that the retrodicted FES values for Florida anglers – who comprise much of the Gulf red grouper recreational fishers – are not statistically different from the previously existing CHTS estimates.

In other words, there appears to be insufficient statistical information to determine that historical catch for these anglers was different from the previous estimates, and therefore there is no basis for reallocation.

Our combined review of both the Council procedures and the ultimately selected alternative using questionable historic statistical analyses demonstrates that Amendment 53 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico:

  • Does not promote conservation for a highly vulnerable stock;
  • Does not advance objectives of the Fishery Management Plan;
  • Ignores factors that would have increased the commercial sectors allocation;
  • Does not minimize bycatch;
  • Does not provide information on how NOAA Fisheries recalibrated historical red grouper landings;
  • Ignored the Council’s allocation policy;
  • Ignores recommendations of the Reef Fish Advisory Panel and IFQ Advisory Panel.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PROBLEMS

To translate the term “consumer surplus” from terms used by economists to the commonly used vernacular, what this means is that the economic analysis used by the Council includes the value of any fish caught by a recreational angler all the way to the hook of the recreational fisher. But when we examine the application of the same “consumer surplus” concept as it is applied to the commercial fishery in the Council analysis, the calculation ends at the “ex-vessel” value that is paid by a “fish house” or processor at the dock. So, all of the additional economic value added by the GCSA members who distribute seafood wholesale, or own markets or restaurants, is ignored in the Council calculations, as well as the value to the end consumers of seafood.

There is no justification for this choice, nor even any disclosure that this choice was made.

Our economic analysis found that the FEIS contains incomplete, arbitrary and biased analysis – it cannot be relied upon for federal rulemaking until corrections are made.

The key points in our review are as follows:

  • Estimates of angler consumer surplus are arbitrary and overstated.
  • Estimates of consumer surplus from commercial harvest are missing.
  • Estimates of producer surplus from commercial harvest are missing for secondary wholesale, retail and restaurants.
  • Estimates of climate change impacts are missing. Our estimates indicate substantially larger climate change impacts from recreational trips than from commercial harvest.
  • Indirect and induced economic impacts are omitted from the cost-benefit analysis.
  • Objective cost-benefit analysis favors increasing commercial quota allocation.
  • Confidence in the analysis is overstated because estimates of uncertainty are missing.

The economic conclusions drawn in the FEIS to support Amendment 53 hinge entirely on the arbitrary assignment of outsize enjoyment benefits to recreational anglers of $110 per fish. This value is based on a single research study using hypothetical tradeoffs, and it is more than 25x the value determined appropriate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Without this single arbitrary assumption, the economic analysis in the FEIS would come to the opposite conclusion: Amendment 53 should be rejected and, if anything, recreational quota should be reallocated to the commercial fishery.

LEGAL PROBLEMS

Our legal analysis shows the rule would violate existing law in several ways:

  • Under the law, if fishing privileges are allocated to a specific group, that allocation must actually “promote” a conservation purpose. Because the allocation fails to promote the conservation of a fish stock, the rule violates National Standard Four of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(4).
  • It does not advance the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan to achieve robust fishery reporting and data collection systems across all sectors for monitoring the reef fish fishery, which minimizes scientific, management, and risk uncertainty; to minimize and reduce dead discards; and to promote and maintain accountability in the reef fish fishery. By selecting alternatives that contradict these stated goals the Agency is acting in an arbitrary and unreasonable fashion. Oceana, Inc. v. Evans, 2005 WL 555426, *7 (D.D.C. 2005), quoting City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862, 867 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
  • National Standard 9, 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9) directs those measures to minimize bycatch or mortality of bycatch. Amendment 53 has no measures to reduce bycatch. Rather, the rule would increase bycatch in a directed fishery. In Coastal Conservation Ass’n v. Gutierrez, 512 F.Supp.2d 896 (2007), and in Flaherty v. Bryson, 850 F.Supp.2d 38 (2012), courts found that NMFS violated the law by not including measures to address the minimization of bycatch.
  • 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(2) dictates that conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. Yet, as our economic analysis shows, the Environmental Protection Agency’s meta-analysis is far superior than the economic analysis used to justify Amendment 53 in every objective way. In Hall v. Evans, 165 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.R.I. 2001), the Court concluded that NMFS violated National Standard 2 because the Secretary had not utilized the best scientific information available to the agency.
  • The proposed rule for Amendment 53 is similar to the rule promulgated for Amendment 28 to the Reef Fish FMP which was rejected in Guindon v. Pritzker, 240 F. Supp. 3d 181 (D.D.C. 2017), in which the Court struck down a reallocation that rewarded the recreational sector for overharvesting as not “fair and equitable”.

OTHER MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSING THIS ACTION
Following are excerpts from their public comments:

Environmental Defense Fund:

  • Much of our U.S. work supports the development and implementation of fishery management best practices and climate resilience. Key to progress in these areas is ensuring that fishery management policies are rooted in sound public process, are consistent with governing laws, and use the best available science. It is through this lens that we respectfully request that you reject Amendment 53 in its current form and send it back to the Gulf Council for further consideration, following the Gulf Council’s designated allocation review process.

National Restaurant Association

  • [Amendment 53 will] cause significant harm to the entire seafood supply chain, including restaurants, and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Fishery Conservation and Management Act [and] would remove hundreds of thousands of red grouper servings from restaurants and their consumers.

National Fisheries Institute

  • If adopted, Amendment 53 will establish a worrisome precedent against the science-driven, collaborative MSA framework. That framework has enabled NMFS and the fishery management councils to restore dozens of significant fisheries to maximum sustainable yield and then to keep them there in the face of conservation and other headwinds. But if one sector can successfully engineer a dramatic reallocation in the red grouper fishery as proposed here, that will tempt others to seek similar, one-sided outcomes in other, completely unrelated fisheries that (like this one) do not face sustainability disaster. Gulf Council management of the red snapper fishery in recent years has already prompted similar concerns from environmental advocates, commercial seafood producers, Gulf Council members, and other parties. This will undermine the MSA framework and if repeated often enough will cause its collapse.

Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance

  • NMFS attempted to re-create historical ACLs based on FES calibrations for other species like king mackerel. No similar attempt was made for red grouper. Our understanding is that attempting to calculate historical ACLs going back to years used for red grouper allocation (1986-2005) was difficult. But without undertaking that exercise, reallocation is just a one-way ratchet in which only the recreational sector can ever benefit. In that regard, red grouper reallocation under Amendment 53 is similar to red snapper reallocation under Amendment 28, which a court struck down as not fair and equitable as required by National Standard 4.

Charter Fisherman’s Association

  • Amendment 53 appears to punish the commercial sector for the discards of the recreational sector (the commercial sector loses 1.2 million pounds of red grouper while the recreational sector’s quota only increases 550,000 pounds; the remaining 650,000 pounds goes to accounting for the recreational sector discards) and we can’t support that…Each sector, or subsector, should be responsible for their own discards and not be forced to subsidize the dead discards of others.

The Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance (GCSA) is an organization of stakeholders seeking a common goal: equitable and sustainable fisheries along the Gulf Coast for commercial and recreational use alike. Our members make up a diverse group of restaurant owners, chefs, vessel owners, and seafood market owners. GCSA members represent the entire spectrum of commercial fish production in the Gulf of Mexico, from harvest at sea, to processing, and ultimately to the end consumer – shoppers in markets and diners in restaurants.

 

Red Grouper Reallocation by NOAA Fisheries Punishes Commercial Fishermen and Seafood Consumers, Jeopardizes Red Grouper Sustainability

May 2, 2022 — The following  was released by A.P. Bell Fish Company, the Gulf of Mexico Reef Shareholders’ Alliance, and the Southern Offshore Fishing Association:

Today, the U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries formally published their decision to take fish from commercial fishing families, the seafood supply chain, and the seafood consumers they serve. The publication of the Final Rule implementing Amendment 53 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan comes despite NOAA Fisheries admitting that doing so will increase recreational discards, put more strain on the recovery of this species, and reduce the amount of red grouper that all fishermen can enjoy in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Red grouper is the foundation of my family’s business that has existed in Florida for more than 80 years,” said Karen Bell, third-generation owner and President of A.P. Bell Fish Company located in Cortez, Florida. “We pride ourselves on catching and serving our customers fresh, wild, sustainably-caught red grouper from the Gulf of Mexico. Now NOAA Fisheries is making it difficult for us to serve our customers and stay in business.”

The ostensible purpose of Amendment 53 is to account for new data from NOAA Fisheries based on the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Fishing Effort Survey (FES), which indicated the recreational sector catches more red grouper than previously estimated. But instead of using these new data to spark a discussion about better management and more accountability to ensure all fishermen stay within their catch limits, NOAA Fisheries and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) chose to use these new data to literally “rewrite history” to justify taking 32% of the commercial sector’s quota and giving it to the recreational sector.

“Somehow NOAA Fisheries took this new recreational FES survey, magically revised 35 years of data about what recreational anglers caught in the past, and told us that commercial fishermen need to give up some of our quota so these anglers get more fish to catch in the future,” said Ed Maccini, president of the Southern Offshore Fishing Association (SOFA), based in Madeira Beach, Florida. “But unlike commercial fishermen who report and weigh every pound of fish we land, recreational anglers don’t have to report what they catch or even be accurate in what they choose to report. It’s all basically guesswork by NOAA Fisheries. And now they’re taking our quota away based on these highly uncertain and wildly changing estimates.”

Commercial fishermen remain baffled as to why NOAA Fisheries would make such an anti-conservation decision when the red grouper stock recently reached some of the lowest levels on record. Furthermore, according to the Gulf Council’s own analysis, rewarding the recreational sector with more allocation “is more likely to result in an overfishing or eventual overfished status of red grouper.”

“This is a lose-lose-lose situation: our businesses are taking a hit, seafood consumers are taking a hit, and the health of the red grouper stock is taking a hit,” said Jason DeLaCruz, owner of Wild Seafood Co. in John’s Pass, Florida. “The commercial sector is stuck with getting a smaller slice of a smaller pie, yet the recreational sector is allowed to throw back more than 3.7 million red grouper every year, and a few years back they threw back more than 6 million red grouper – that’s more fish than commercial fishermen are allowed to land. Amendment 53 reduces everyone’s quotas so that the recreational sector can discard more fish. It’s such a waste.”

The public opposition to Amendment 53 has been overwhelming – all told, more than 99.3% of all testimony recently submitted to NOAA Fisheries opposed Amendment 53. This opposition came from a wide range of industries and sectors including:

  • Commercial fishermen
  • Commercial fishing organizations (in the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the country)
  • Federal commercial fishing coalitions (representing commercial fishermen from Alaska to California to Maine to the Gulf of Mexico)
  • The restaurant industry
  • The seafood supply chain
  • Charter/for-hire fishermen and fishing organizations
  • Scientists
  • Economists
  • Environmental organizations
  • Lawyers/legal advisors, and
  • Seafood consumers (literally thousands of them)

“Amendment 53 is illegal. Period,” said Buddy Guindon, Executive Director of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance, based in Galveston, Texas. “It maximizes discards, unfairly penalizes commercial fishermen by taking away their quota to cover dead discards by recreational anglers, and increases the risk of overfishing. This is opposite of what Congress intended when it adopted the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.”

Recent Headlines

  • Judge allows lawsuit challenging Trump’s wind energy ban to proceed
  • “Shrimp Fraud” Allegations Are Rocking the Restaurant World. We Talked to the Company Blowing the Whistle.
  • Scientists warn that the ocean is growing greener at poles
  • NOAA awards $95 million contract to upgrade fisheries survey vessel
  • Fishing council to ask Trump to lift fishing ban in Papahanaumokuakea
  • The ocean is changing colors, researchers say. Here’s what it means.
  • NORTH CAROLINA: New bill to protect waterways would ‘destroy’ shrimp industry in North Carolina, critics warn
  • NORTH CAROLINA: Restaurateur rips NC bill HB 442: ‘Slitting the throats of the commercial fishing industry

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Hawaii Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2025 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions