The public commentary period for NOAA Fisheries’ Secretarial Amendment 59 closed last night, marking the passing of the final opportunity for stakeholders to voice their concerns over one of the most controversial fisheries management proposals in recent years. This amendment, which includes a sweeping bottom fishing closure in the South Atlantic, has sparked intense debate within the fishing community, drawing opposition from industry leaders, conservation groups, and state agencies alike.
Overview of Amendment 59 and the Proposed Closure
Secretarial Amendment 59 is NOAA Fisheries’ latest effort to address red snapper bycatch and dead discards in the South Atlantic. However, one of its most drastic measures—a 41,355 square mile bottom fishing closure—has alarmed anglers, charter captains, and business owners who argue that the amendment unfairly punishes responsible fishermen while doing little to improve stock assessments.
The closure proposed aims to restrict bottom fishing in areas stretching from North Carolina to Florida depending on which zones are selected, impacting hundreds of for-hire captains, private anglers, and commercial operations that rely on access to reef species like grouper, snapper, triggerfish, and amberjack. Opponents argue that the closure is based on flawed discard data and would devastate coastal economies, particularly in Florida, where the recreational and charter fishing industry plays a significant economic role.
Widespread Opposition from Industry Leaders and Organizations
As the deadline for public comment approached, the overwhelming response has been strongly against the proposed closures. Over 500 individuals and organizations have submitted formal comments, including some of the most influential names in the sportfishing and marine industries:
• International Game Fish Association (IGFA)
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)
• Sportsmen’s Alliance
• Southeastern Fisheries Association
• Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
• Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
• Center for Sportfishing Policy
• Coastal Conservation Association (CCA)
• Marine Retailers Association of the Americas
• Guy Harvey Foundation
• BoatUS Foundation
These organizations, which represent millions of anglers, conservationists, and marine businesses, have all expressed concerns that the amendment lacks sound scientific justification and will have devastating consequences on both recreational and commercial fishing interests. Many have called for alternative management solutions, such as improved data collection, electronic monitoring, and sector-specific adjustments rather than sweeping closures.
What’s Next?
With the March 17 deadline now past us, NOAA Fisheries will review the feedback before making a final decision on the implementation of Amendment 59.
Anglers, business owners, and policymakers alike will be watching closely to see whether NOAA takes these widespread concerns into account or proceeds with the closure despite the overwhelming opposition. The future of South Atlantic bottom fishing access hangs in the balance, making this final push for public input more critical than ever.
More Info
As the doors of the comment window closed on NOAA Fisheries Secretarial Amendment 59, some big name chime in voice their concerns, here are some highlight overviews of some of the statements submitted.
The International Game Fish Association (IGFA) strongly opposed key elements of Amendment 59, particularly Action 4, which seeks to prohibit recreational bottom fishing for 55 species from December through February. IGFA argued that this restriction would have “devastating effects for the recreational fishing industry, coastal communities, and anglers throughout the state of Florida and the broader South Atlantic region,” noting that recreational fishing contributes over $9 billion to Florida’s economy and supports over 80,000 jobs. While IGFA did support removing the overfishing designation for red snapper and increasing the Annual Biological Catch (ABC) to 509,000 fish, they contend that the proposed bottom fishing ban is based on “questionable discard data” from the Marine Recreational Information Program, which overestimates discards by 30-40%. IGFA urged NOAA to adopt alternative methods to reduce red snapper dead discards, such as “angler outreach and education initiatives, including the mandatory use of descending devices,” rather than enacting what they view as “heavy-handed management actions.” They called on the Secretary of Commerce to reconsider the proposed ban and instead work with anglers and industry partners to develop better solutions.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) also strongly opposed Amendment 59, calling it a “draconian action of closures” that unfairly targets Florida’s recreational anglers and coastal communities. FWC argued that the proposed three-month closure of bottom fishing for 55 species is unjustified, as “Atlantic red snapper is no longer overfished” and the stock is at “record abundance and biomass with continued high recruitment.” The commission criticizes NOAA Fisheries for basing the amendment on “bad science,” citing its exclusion of Florida’s State Reef Fish Survey (SRFS) data and reliance on the flawed Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), which may overestimate fishing effort by up to 40%. FWC also condemned the amendment as an “unfunded mandate” that would divert law enforcement resources and harm national security efforts. The economic consequences would be severe, with FWC noting that “marine recreational fishing in the affected counties contributed more than $812 million to Florida’s economy and employed 6,826 people” in 2023. The commission insists that the amendment “violates National Standards” under the Magnuson-Stevens Act by restricting access to species that are not overfished and disproportionately targeting Florida. FWC urged NOAA to either “start over” or limit the amendment to Action 1, which would revise the overfishing status determination for red snapper.
The owner of FV Sea Spirit, the last remaining headboat in Volusia County, Florida, voiced strong concerns about Secretarial Amendment 59, warning it could have “irreversible damages” on the industry. Supporting Action 1, which acknowledges that red snapper are no longer overfished, they also urged NMFS to exempt headboats from Action 4’s discard reduction areas, stating that “headboats are responsible for the lowest amount of dead discards, around 1-2%.” They highlighted headboats’ role in providing affordable fishing access, collecting critical fishery data since 1972, and practicing responsible fishing methods such as using descending devices and prohibiting culling. They criticized the DEIS for assuming headboats could increase ticket prices, calling it “not only immoral, it’s just wrong,” and warned that if Amendment 59 passes in its current form, many headboats will be forced out of business. Additionally, they cited safety concerns from “derby-style” red snapper seasons, noting that a fellow operator’s vessel was nearly struck last year. They urged NMFS to reconsider, emphasizing that while red snapper retention isn’t crucial to their business, “access to our fishery is vital.”
Capt. Bob Zales, II, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA), submitted comments on Secretarial Amendment 59, voicing strong concerns over the scientific methodology and economic impact of the proposed regulations. While supporting Action 5A (a 150-pound commercial trip limit) and Action 5B (a May 1 season start date), he criticized the recreational sector’s lack of accountability, stating, “98% of all red snapper discard mortalities (2021-2023) were from the recreational sector.” He argued that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is inadequate, failing to assess the devastating effects of a three-month closure on businesses such as “vessel docking facilities, fuel suppliers, bait and tackle dealers, and local communities as a whole.” Zales urged NMFS to delay implementation until results from ongoing studies, including the Great South Atlantic Red Snapper Count, are available in August 2025. “The assumption that these businesses can relocate or endure a three-month hiatus is unrealistic,” he warned, calling for updated research before moving forward.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (SAF) submitted comments opposing key aspects of Secretarial Amendment 59, arguing that the proposed snapper-grouper discard reduction season is an unjustified fishing closure based on unreliable data. SAF criticized the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) estimates, stating that the agency “acknowledged in its own report” that MRIP overestimates recreational effort by “30-40%.” The organization rejected NMFS’s “rob Peter to pay Paul” approach, arguing that closing fishing for 55 species to gain “3-7 additional fishing days” for red snapper is a “Band-Aid” solution that violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s mandate for optimum yield. SAF also condemned NMFS’s failure to account for economic impacts, pointing out that Florida’s recreational fishing sector generates “26,400 jobs and $4.1 billion in sales,” far outweighing commercial revenues. They urged NMFS to delay implementation, incorporate state-collected data, and adopt a Gulf of Mexico-style co-management approach, concluding that “the current management and data-gathering system is broken.”
The fight over Secretarial Amendment 59 is far from over. While the public comment period has officially closed, the overwhelming opposition from anglers, businesses, and conservation organizations sends a clear message to NOAA Fisheries: this amendment, as written, is unacceptable. With over 500 submissions–including major players in the marine industry—NOAA is now under immense pressure to reconsider its approach. Whether the agency takes these concerns seriously or pushes forward with sweeping closures will determine the future of bottom fishing in the South Atlantic. As stakeholders await NOAA’s final decision, one thing remains certain: the fishing community will continue to fight for fair, science-based management that protects both the fishery and those who depend on it.
