Red Snapper Ban

Since January 4th of this year, it has been illegal to fish for red snapper in federal waters off of the Atlantic coasts of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. In Florida, where the fish is most abundant, this regulation pertains to parts of the ocean extending from 3.45 miles off of the coast to 230 miles out. The regulation was approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a federal agency that is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The interim rule will be in effect for six months.

While the red snapper is an incredibly popular fish to both the recreational and commercial fisheries in the Southeast, government scientists have determined that it is being harvested at an unsustainable rate. In recent years, larger and older specimens of the species have become a rarity. Such evidence has led scientists to assert that the stock is being overfished. The obvious action for the government to take , some might say, would be to prevent people from harvesting the species. While such a regulation has been implemented, it has been met with much dismay from different parties representing the fishing industry. In Florida in particular, a state where the fishing industry brings in over $9 billion annually, many individuals rely on fish like the red snapper to make a living. Both charter and commercial fishermen rely on the species as a commodity, thus making them the parties most affected by the regulation. Some fishermen have the opinion that the fish stock is not only being sustained but that it is thriving.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance, an interest group opposed to the regulation, even attempted to bring the NMFS to court on the grounds that it was jeopardizing many people's livelihoods by implementing a regulation based on illegitimate data. Such an attempt evidences how much is at stake with such a large-scale regulation. Much of the controversy related to the ban is rooted in the public's opposition to government regulations of the market. In fact, there have already been similar regulations imposed regarding both gag grouper and vermillion snapper stocks. Fishermen and those with stakes in the fishing industry, like those in the tourism sector, realize that by putting red snapper fishermen out of a job the regulation is also forcing those affected into searching for another job during an economic recession. These woes are not unwarranted.

It is my opinion, however, that those opposed to the regulation are falling prey to short-term thinking. While the regulation will surely hurt crucial sectors of the affected states' economies, it is important to remember that it is only being implemented for half of a year. If during that half of a year the stock of red snapper grows, which seems likely ceteris paribus, then the fishing sector will see a benefit in the long-term in the form of a healthier, more abundant stock of target fish. On that same note, those with interests in protecting wild species so that those experiencing the associated benefits from that species in the present do not jeopardize such experiences for those in the future, then the regulation will likely insure that the red snapper can be enjoyed by people in the future as it is now. Hence, while the objectives of environmental protection and strengthening the economy can at first glance seem to clash with one another, it is easier to see how the two are one in the same when viewed from a future-conscious lens.