WHERE’S DOGE: NOAA Fisheries Faces Backlash for Banning Legal Shore-Based Bluefin Tuna Fishing, Ignoring Its Own 2021 Decision
- Southern States
- 6 days ago
- 10 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
In early 2025, NOAA Fisheries announced the closure of the Atlantic bluefin tuna recreational trophy fishery in the southern federally managed area, which includes North Carolina. Effective February 28, the closure came after NOAA reported that the region’s subquota of 2.3 metric tons had been reached and exceeded. As a result, fishing for bluefin tuna under HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permits was prohibited in federal waters south of 39°18′ N latitude, outside the Gulf of Mexico.
However, this closure has ignited widespread backlash among the fishing community, particularly in North Carolina, where the bluefin tuna were not primarily caught in federal waters. The bulk of the reported landings came from shore-based anglers and small boat fishermen operating within state waters—areas outside NOAA’s federal jurisdiction. Notably, an extraordinary run of bluefin tuna occurred at Jennette’s Pier in Nags Head, with several large fish being landed directly from the pier, drawing media attention and creating a once-in-a-lifetime moment for many local anglers.
Currently, NOAA’s Highly Migratory Species (HMS) permits are designed for vessels only, and there is no permit available for land-based fishing of HMS species like bluefin tuna. This gap in regulatory structure has led to serious frustration among anglers and fishing advocates, who argue that the closure does not apply to shore-based or state-water fishing activities. They view the federal response as an overreach—one that punishes recreational fishermen operating legally and ethically under state rules simply because federal data reflected a regional quota being exceeded. They argue it was also an overstep of the agency who should have handled the case, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, who oversees state waters. We argue that the entire event is in direct contradiction of a very similiar event that occurred just a couple years prior, in which NOAA themselves stated the catch was allowable. (See more below in #1)
Critics say NOAA’s decision is emblematic of a broader pattern of federal overreach and inflexible policy-making that continues to sideline local fishing communities. The lack of accommodation for unique, land-based fishing events and the failure to distinguish between state and federal jurisdictions has sparked accusations that NOAA is more focused on bureaucratic enforcement and revenue than on listening to the communities who live by the water and rely on these fisheries. As one frustrated angler put it, “We weren’t doing anything wrong—but they shut us down anyway.”
The situation has spotlighted the growing disconnect between federal fisheries managers and the realities of local fishing traditions. With many recreational anglers feeling ignored or unfairly penalized, calls are mounting for NOAA to reform its permitting system to reflect the diversity of fishing practices across the United States. Shore-based fishermen, in particular, are pushing for a voice in future regulatory decisions, demanding recognition, representation, and a permitting path that doesn’t exclude them from participating in specific species- such as the highly migratory fisheries.
What happened at Jennette’s Pier was a rare and remarkable event— an act of god that highlighted the awe and opportunity that fishing can bring to coastal communities. But rather than celebrating it, NOAA Fisheries moved quickly to shut it down. As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: more flexible, transparent, and community-informed fisheries management is needed to prevent this kind of clash from happening again.
It's worth noting that Jennette's pier is the longest public pier in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, extending 1000 feet into the Atlantic Ocean– but it's a whole 9,560 feet until the start of federally managed waters. Initial calls for information offered the following information: this type of fishing can no longer be done from the pier- you will have to try from shore or via kayak, it was also noted that there has not been a bluefin caught in over a week. When we called Jennette's Pier administrative office to request a comment on the incident, they declined the opportunity citing only that they are a state agency.
Calls to local bait shops and watersport rental companies helped us piece together what happened after the remarkable catches. NOAA Fisheries officials did, in fact, show up in person—walking the area and telling anyone they could find that what they were doing was illegal, despite there being no law to back that claim. On top of that, we were told NOAA sent out a notice demanding all related information be taken down from the internet—a clear violation of our First Amendment rights as American citizens. It was also stated that one of the anglers did in fact incur a fine- the legality of that fine however, remains to be seen.
Calls to NOAA Fisheries permit office in the South East confirmed our suspicions, and we were told that you do not need a permit to fish for bluefin tuna on land. The representative did however mention that there might be a state permit for this type of fishing, and directed us to contact North Carolina's Division of Marine Fisheries for more information. After a call with the Division who seemed unaware of a law or permit governing this, we were forwarded to a Marine Fisheries Officer for more detailed information, the officers voicemail however was full-but if a call back is received we will update this article with relevant information. Requests were also put in to NOAA's South East Regional media office for comments, but at the time of posting this article they had not been returned.
How did NOAA even get wind of the pier tuna action in the first place? Was it a North Carolina charter captain who saw the viral posts and got salty about people promoting tuna fishing from the pier—worried it might pull business from their offshore trips? Were they the ones who “turned it in,” frustrated by the fact that charter captains have to jump through endless hoops just to hold an HMS permit? Or was it simply the buzz on social media that got too loud to ignore? We may never know for sure—unless someone files a formal FOIA request and gets the paper trail.
Stark Contrasts In Fisheries Management
Consider the case of red snapper, a species whose management has long been a point of contention in the southeastern Atlantic. In federal waters, anglers are permitted only a single day—if that—each year to legally harvest this species. Yet just beyond the boundary line, in state-controlled waters, those same anglers may legally retain one red snapper per day, so long as it meets the state’s minimum size requirement. This stark contrast underscores a fundamental legal inconsistency: the same species, subject to two drastically different regulatory regimes, depending not on biological data, but on arbitrary jurisdictional lines. This precedent matters. It proves unequivocally that regulatory discretion—not scientific necessity—often dictates access. To then penalize land-based anglers for catching bluefin tuna from shore, in state waters where no federal HMS permit is required or even available, is not only inconsistent—it is an overreach. NOAA Fisheries, in this instance, exceeded its authority, undermining both the law and the rights of the recreational fishing community.
The recent moves by NOAA Fisheries—particularly the expansion of highly restrictive offshore zones and catch limitations—can be argued as clear overreach when viewed in light of overwhelming evidence that many pelagic species regularly move close to shore and can be caught by everyday anglers without the use of commercial longliners or deep-sea gear. These species are not only accessible to private boaters, but even to kayak fishermen, surfcasters and pier fishermen, directly contradicting NOAA’s narrative that they require protection through sweeping offshore closures or heavily centralized federal oversight.
Let’s take a closer look at some articles over the last 10 years:
⸻
1. Bluefin Tuna from Shore – Vineyard Gazette, September 13, 2021
A juvenile bluefin tuna was caught from the shoreline on Martha’s Vineyard. This is a significant point—bluefin are one of the most heavily regulated species in U.S. waters, with entire commercial quotas and closures structured around them. Yet here is proof that they swim within reach of land based fishermen. Restricting vast offshore zones under the justification of protecting such species doesn’t hold up when they’re evidently intermingling with inshore ecosystems.
In this instance the article states: "Mr. Metters said he contacted NOAA Fisheries after the catch and regulators said that because of the circumstances, he was all in the clear." Interesting turn of events. The article states Mr. Metters thought was that it is "technically illegal to target Atlantic bluefin tuna from shore", but we were unable to to find any mention of state waters or shore based fishing in federal fishery law applying to bluefin tuna. We would wager NOAA's decision in this instance was based on the actual law, and the catch was allowed because it was legal. Note: we did not check Massachusetts state law- but we imagine no such law exists. Feel free to correct us in the event that a law is found that stipulates otherwise.
Regardless of Mr. Metters opinion, it's important to note the legal precedent that NOAA set for themselves when handling this event. It's also important to note that the following document on the federal register posted September 24, 2021 list the reopening of Atlantic bluefin tuna on October 1, 2021 – signaling that the fishery was at or near catch limits when the catch occurred.
2. Sailfish caught from kayak near beach – Saltwater Sportsman, July 2023
A kayak angler caught a sailfish just a few hundred yards from the beach in Florida, and the fish did not survive. Sailfish are a species NOAA often includes in their pelagic management strategies. The fact that such a fish was caught by a solo angler on a kayak proves the proximity of these species to accessible public waters. NOAA’s portrayal of these pelagic zones as remote, vulnerable habitats is misleading, when in fact these fish have been documented to cruise the surfline. No action was taken by NOAA.
3. Blue Marlin from Shore in Kaanapali – Lahaina News, October 26, 2017
A 433 lb blue marlin, another species tightly managed by federal agencies, was caught from the beach in Hawaii and backed by video evidence. If blue marlin can swim within casting distance of the sand, then NOAA’s argument for massive pelagic protection zones far offshore is undermined by nature itself. These fish aren’t confined to some deepwater sanctuary—they’re riding currents that bring them right to the people. No action was taken by NOAA.
Other Highly Migratory Species caught from land not managed under HMS but separate regulations:
4. Mahi One Mile Off the Beach – Fish in OC
Reports from Ocean City, Maryland, in 2023 show mahi-mahi (another managed species) being caught just a mile off the beach from a boat. In places like Ponce Inlet, where recreational anglers routinely find mahi within a few miles of the shore, it’s clear NOAA’s geographical assumptions about habitat protection are overly broad and unjustified. In this instance the state waters do not have a mahi regulations and the fish was likely under 12 inches, despite that- it was kept.
5. Mahi in Shallow Waters – The Hull Truth (Forum Thread)
Multiple firsthand accounts from Florida boaters report mahi as close as 25–30 feet of water, especially during certain temperature breaks. When fish migrate this close to shore, the need for massive federal intervention becomes questionable. Local fisheries, states, and even municipalities are better equipped to make nuanced, real-time decisions than distant federal bodies enforcing blanket policies.
⸻
The Argument Continues:
NOAA Fisheries’ justification for enacting wide-reaching regulations over nearshore and offshore waters is based on an outdated, oversimplified understanding of pelagic species behavior and habitat. These articles make it clear: major species like tuna, sailfish, mahi, and marlin frequently occupy waters easily accessed by small boats, kayaks, and even shoreline anglers. The regulatory actions are not rooted in protecting inaccessible or fragile zones—they’re often bureaucratic overextensions that ignore local ecological reality and strip states and local fishermen of reasonable autonomy. The broad closures or restrictions aimed at so-called “offshore” pelagic management zones disproportionately hurt charter captains, recreational anglers, and small-scale operators—all without evidence that these measures actually support sustainable fisheries management. This is textbook federal overreach: using a one-size-fits-all approach where flexible, regionally informed policy would better serve both conservation and access.
Sometimes nature breaks the rules—and those moments should be celebrated, not regulated. From bluefin tuna caught from the sand in Martha’s Vineyard to sailfish hooked from kayaks off Florida, these aren’t everyday occurrences—they’re acts of God. Events like a blue marlin in the surf in Kaanapali or mahi swimming just a mile off the beach in Maryland fall far outside the scope of standard fishery science. They are rare, spontaneous moments that defy data models and boundaries drawn on a map. Treating them as violations or threats to sustainability is a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are: extraordinary gifts from the sea, not predictable patterns of exploitation.
Fisheries management must remain rooted in science, but science should also know when to step aside. These events don’t need to be controlled—they need to be respected. They’re not harming stocks; they’re connecting people to the ocean in powerful, personal ways. Instead of imposing restrictions that penalize these moments, NOAA should recognize them for what they are: miracles that fall outside the bounds of human management, deserving of awe—not enforcement.
Update on HMS Permit Interpretation from NOAA Fisheries – FAQ vs. Regulation
During our review of NOAA Fisheries’ enforcement posture regarding Highly Migratory Species (HMS) permits and the Jennette's Pier incident, we identified a discrepancy between the language in the official regulation and the language used in NOAA’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
The FAQ on NOAA Fisheries’ HMS website states:
“Only permitted vessels may fish for Atlantic bluefin, bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack tunas in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. If one of these species is caught incidentally during fishing activities from shore or from an oil rig, it must be released immediately.”
However, the relevant legal authority—50 C.F.R. § 635.71(a)(2)—does not contain any reference to shore-based fishing or oil rig platforms as the FAQs do. The regulation reads:
“It is unlawful for any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to: Fish for, catch, possess, retain, land, or sell Atlantic highly migratory species without the appropriate valid vessel permit…”
Key points from our review:
• The regulation explicitly targets vessels and does not extend its prohibitions to fishing from shore or stationary platforms such as oil rigs.
• There is no mention of state waters, shore based, kayak, oil rig, or pier fishing in the cited provision.
• FAQs are not binding legal authority. They serve as interpretive guidance but cannot expand or redefine the scope of a regulation without going through the formal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act.
NOAA’s FAQ appears to overstate the regulatory prohibition by implying that shore-based anglers and oil rig fishermen are legally required to release HMS species under the vessel permit requirement. This is not supported by the plain text of the regulation. If NOAA intends to regulate these fishing activities, such measures would require formal amendment through proper administrative procedures—not informal interpretive materials.
Further monitoring or inquiry may be warranted to determine whether enforcement actions have been taken based on interpretive overreach.
Another update will follow if more information becomes available.