10/06/2026
Don’t count ya snappers before they’re in the boat…
BREAKING: NEW LAWSUIT CHALLENGES OCTOBER RED SNAPPER PERMITS
[WHAT SHOULD YOU DO NOW? Don’t panic or start canceling trips based on the lawsuit alone! Follow us & keep checking back for updates as we follow the filings & any court decisions leading up to Friday’s scheduled opening.]
Three full days left before Friday’s red snapper opening, and we have another lawsuit. Apparently, getting a fish into the cooler requires a fishing license, a reporting app.. and the paralegal certificate I’m still working on.
A new lawsuit filed October 5 by commercial fishing businesses & fishermen challenges NOAA’s September approval of the state EFPs for Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. Those permits authorize the October 9–22 recreational season, with a possible additional opening in December.
Some new players, some familiar involvement, at least one plaintiff also participated in the earlier lawsuit that blocked the first round of permits in May. We checked the original lawsuit’s docket, and there are no new filings or updates there. That being said, the new plaintiffs formally designated this new lawsuit as related to that pending case, citing common factual issues and the same underlying events. It is a separately filed case with a formal connection to the earlier challenge. That notice does not itself merge the cases or stop fishing.
The filing reviewed here contains NO emergency motion and NO order stopping the October season. The civil cover sheet also leaves the temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction category unchecked. Sources close to the case suggest the plaintiffs in this case are NOT pursuing an emergency shutdown of the fall recreational season and are focused on fair commercial access and future allocations.
But make no mistake: the complaint asks the court to set aside the permits, just not in an emergency fashion. It also requests an order requiring NOAA to follow the governing allocation ratio in 2026 and subsequent years. The judge will decide what the judge will decide, whenever the judge gets assigned. (What a tongue twister!)
WHAT ARE THEY CHALLENGING?
First, who gets the additional fish:
Using NOAA’s figures cited in the complaint, the overall recreational harvest level increased from 21,726 fish to 112,787 fish in the agency’s converted survey units. That higher figure includes the 15,514 unassigned pool. The commercial allowance remained unchanged at approximately 11,213 fish. These are harvest allowances and projections, not confirmed actual landings. The commercial sector received none of the additional allowance.
The complaint argues that this effectively shifts the harvest split from the established allocation of roughly 72% recreational and 28% commercial to approximately 90% recreational and 10% commercial. The plaintiffs estimate roughly 25,000 of the additional fish should have gone toward commercial harvest under the governing allocation. They acknowledge that the exact number depends on conversion procedures.
Commercial fishermen have operated under restrictive seasons and trip limits for years. Asking how they were excluded from newly available harvest is a reasonable question. The complaint also alleges NOAA failed to acknowledge that allocation change or adequately respond to objections raised during public comment.
Second, how NOAA created that additional harvest:
NOAA used lower estimated recreational dead discards to create room for additional retained fish. The complaint challenges whether the agency could legally change that catch limit mechanism through temporary permits instead of the Council and fishery management plan process.
It also challenges NOAA’s conversion of the stock’s reference points into state survey units using ratios from a working paper for the unfinished SEDAR 90 assessment. The plaintiffs argue that transition should have gone through the stock assessment process, rather than being implemented through temporary permits. Apparently, the management process has a shortcut. Unfortunately, it keeps leading back to the courthouse.
Third, the assumptions supporting the numbers:
According to NOAA’s justification as cited in the complaint, the agency calculated two options: an 11 day EFP season using the lower total annual catch limit, or a 14 day season using the higher overfishing limit. NOAA chose the higher figure despite acknowledging that doing so increased the risk of overfishing.
The complaint also challenges the assumption that 2026 dead discards will resemble 2025, whether an avoided discard death is biologically equivalent to a retained fish, and the failure to estimate Florida’s earlier state water harvest before approving the new harvest levels. The 15,514 unassigned fish were described as accommodating North Carolina harvest, additional state water landings and a buffer against overfishing. The plaintiffs question whether that pool can adequately cover all three.
They also argue that collecting data during a short open season will not adequately measure the out of season dead discards driving much of this fishery’s mortality.
Then there is accountability:
The plaintiffs allege NOAA did not adequately explain what happens if actual landings or dead discards exceed the estimates supporting the permits. Their concern is that commercial fishermen receive none of the additional harvest but could still share the consequences if the stock’s recovery is set back.
These challenges address specific decisions and calculations in NOAA’s approval. The court will determine whether those decisions violated the law. The commercial plaintiffs also express support for angler registration and improved recreational data. Their objection is to how NOAA authorized and distributed additional harvest.
Commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and charter operators all have a stake in a management system that can explain its numbers and follow its own process. Everyone makes plans around these decisions, and everyone can bear the consequences when those decisions fall short.
This lawsuit does not itself cancel the season. The separately established October 9–11 federal season is also distinct from the state EFP openings challenged here. For now, we have a new case formally identified as related to the original lawsuit, serious questions about allocation, catch accounting and accountability, and a request for relief that reaches well beyond October. All arriving with just three full days between us and the scheduled opening.
We’ll continue to report the court’s actions as they happen. The complaint tells us what the plaintiffs want. The judge gets the next word. For now, we're off to go memorize yet another docket number..
Help support PFN’s reporting and the cost of keeping up with these court filings: https://buymeacoffee.com/PonceFishNetwork
TL;DR: Commercial fishing businesses and fishermen filed a new lawsuit challenging NOAA’s revised red snapper permits over allocation, catch limit changes, survey conversions, scientific assumptions and accountability. They formally identified it as related to the original pending lawsuit, which has no new docket updates. NO emergency motion or order stopping the season appears in the filing reviewed. Sources close to the case say an emergency fall shutdown is NOT their goal, but the complaint requests that the permits be set aside. Don’t panic. Keep checking PFN for updates. The judge will decide what happens next.
