November 1, 2021

Gulf King Mackerel Amendment Ignores Value of the Recreational Fishery


Why it matters: Allocating fisheries resources between the commercial and recreational sectors is perhaps the most difficult decision a regional fishery management council will face. Many allocations were set decades ago and have not been adjusted because of the contentious nature of deciding who should get more fish and who should get less. The new Fishing Effort Survey (FES) of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) has indicated that, for many marine species, recreational anglers have been catching more fish than previously thought. Since the federal fisheries management model is based largely on catch history, adjusting that catch history upwards has resulted in larger estimated fish populations and, thus, a larger overall quota available for harvest. However, despite a recent policy directive from NOAA and a Government Accountability Office study to provide advice on how to allocate fisheries, Amendment 33 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishery Management Plan proposed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is choosing to ignore those recommendations and shift allocation away from the recreational fishery to the commercial fishery with no justification.

While Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) red snapper has received all the attention in recent years, the Gulf has many other important recreational species for anglers to target, whether it be to harvest a fish for dinner or simply spending time on the water practicing catch and release. King mackerel, commonly called “kings”, fit in both categories. Open year round, king mackerel provide for a fun fishing experience for both novice and experienced anglers alike, even if most are released.

The current king mackerel quota allocation, based on data from the 1970’s, is apportioned 68% to the recreational sector and 32% to the commercial sector. While the commercial sector harvests all their quota each year, the recreational sector leaves a significant portion of their fish in the water.

Unlike red snapper, where recreational anglers want to harvest the majority of the red snapper they catch, king mackerel are often released. However, leaving king mackerel in the water is important to provide for a robust population and increased chances of being successful on any given fishing trip. With red snapper, optimal yield is more about the pounds of fish available for harvest. However, for the king mackerel recreational fishery, a definition of optimal yield would be better expressed in maximizing opportunities to encounter fish.

The new Marine Recreational Information Program’s (MRIP) Fishing Effort Survey (FES) has found that recreational catch of king mackerel has been higher than previously thought, and the updated king mackerel stock assessment justifies an upwards revision of the available annual catch limit (ACL). Amendment 33 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources currently before the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) would codify the increase. However, the amendment also seeks to give a portion, or all, of the increase in available fish to the commercial sector.

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation’s (CSF) Chris Horton spoke against the reallocation portion of Amendment 33 at last week’s Gulf Council meeting in Orange Beach, Alabama. Horton testified that while CSF supports the increase in the ACL based on the recommendations of the Science and Statistical Committee, we could not support any action on the reallocation of king mackerel quota to the commercial sector in this amendment. It fails to incorporate any evaluation of social or economic implications of the shift, ignoring the recent NOAA policy directive on reallocation. Horton reiterated the importance and value of leaving fish in the water to provide recreational angling opportunities when other seasons are closed. He urged the Gulf Council to take up the reallocation discussion in a different amendment that truly evaluates the importance of this fishery, and any reallocation impacts from a social, economic, and environmental perspectives.

Studies conducted at both the state and federal level have found that the number of hunters and trappers have been on a generally declining trend over the past several decades. To increase recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) of hunters and trappers, which initiative do you think would have the greatest impact?

View All news

Back TO All

In Season


Stay current with the latest news, policy activity and how to get involved.

Sign up for Newsletters


Donate today so we can keep fighting for tomorrow!

Donate Now