No estimates for intrinsic rate of increase for snappers were available. Age at maturity is unknown for most snapper species. Several studies of Red Snapper indicate that maturity occurs at 12 to 15 inches fork length, which corresponds to 2 years of age (Potts et al. 1998; SAFMC 1999). The slower growing Vermilion Snapper can also mature around age 2, which corresponds to a fork length of just 8 inches. However, other Vermilion Snapper do not mature until age 4 (SAFMC 1999). Hawaiian Ula’ula, also known as Ehu, mature at a length of 11 inches, or about 2.75 years (HI DLNR 2001a; DeMartini and Lau 1999; Everson 1984). Hawaiian Ula’ula Koa’e mature at a length of 26 (HI DAR 2001a) to 29 (Everson et al. 1989) inches, the equivalent of about 7.5 to 9 years, respectively, based on length/weight/age relationships (HI DAR 2001c). Rose Snapper, also known as Opakapaka, mature at about 3 to 4 years (Ralston 1981).

Members of the snapper group are generally slow-growing and moderately long-lived. Crimson Snapper live less than 10 years (Fishbase 2/11/2005), and Vermilion, Mutton, Mangrove Red, and Crimson Jobfish Snappers live into their mid- to late-teens (Fishbase 2/11/2005; Potts et al. 1998). Some snapper species, including the Yellow-banded Snapper of the Western Pacific, live from 25 to 40 years of age (AFS 2001; Fishbase 2/11/2005). Red Snapper are generally reported to live as long as 25 years (Potts et al. 1998), however some studies claim this species can survive to age 53 (AFS 2001).

To account for the range of ages at which snappers mature and their range of lifespans, a medium score was awarded here.

Many snapper species have been reported to form mass spawning aggregations, where hundreds or even thousands of fish convene to reproduce (Rielinger 1999). The occurrence of large numbers of fish together makes large catches possible with less effort. While many reef fishermen do not have the basic electronic equipment typically used to locate such aggregations, strong site fidelity of some species, both to non-spawning habitats and to spawning sites, and the temporal predictability of their spawning aggregations make them easy to locate (AFS 2001; Rielinger 1999).

Members of the snapper group are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical marine ecosystems in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Several species are present, but rare in temperate waters. Individual snapper species generally have medium-size ranges (Fishbase 2/11/2005), so no points were subtracted or added here.

The information required to assess the status of snapper populations is not available for most species. Where catch and life history data are available and used in population assessments, they are generally believed to be inadequate (AFS 2001; FAO 1996). In a global review of fisheries at risk, Weber (1998) stated that little to no abundance, catch, or effort data exist for reef fish populations in the Western Central Atlantic region (Caribbean and Central America). He ranked reef fishes in the Western Central Pacific (from Southeast Asia and Northeast Australia to the South Pacific) as at high risk, and Golden Snapper in the southwest Pacific as at moderate risk.

In U.S. waters, the status of most snapper species is unknown, and many snapper populations are reportedly below levels required to support sustainable fisheries (Rielinger 1999). In Hawaiian waters, some snapper populations are healthy (e.g. Uku, which is also known as Gray Snapper), while others are over-exploited, but not classified as overfished (e.g. Opakapaka and Onaga; WPFMC 2004).

Abundance trends for snappers are not readily available, however the general movement of commercial reef fish fisheries from shallow- to deeper-water species suggests that nearshore species are generally declining in abundance (Schirripa and Legault 1999; Bryant et al. 1998; Appeldoorn et al. 1992).

Evidence of recruitment overfishing (i.e. when fishing pressure significantly reduces the number of juvenile fish added to the exploitable population) has been reported for some species in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (AFS 2001), the Caribbean (Bryant et al. 1998; Appeldoorn et al. 1992) and the Western Pacific (HI DNR 2001).

The vast majority of the world’s reefs are being fished at unsustainable levels (Bryant et al. 1998). The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (1996) has cautiously classified the status of snapper species in the Caribbean and off of Central America as overexploited (1996) or fully exploited, indicating that those fisheries are operating at or close to an optimal yield level, with no expected room for expansion in total catches.

The status of most snapper species in U.S. waters is unknown. Of the 18 populations for which status has been assessed, 3 are classified as overfished, and 1 is experiencing fishing pressure beyond established fishing mortality thresholds (NMFS 2004). Yellowtail Snapper is the only species for which assessments are available that has been fully rebuilt. In Hawaiian waters, some snapper populations are healthy (e.g. Uku), while others are over-exploited, but not classified as overfished (e.g. Opakapaka and Onaga; WPFMC 2004).

There is insufficient information to classify the status of snapper populations in the South Pacific. The FAO (1997) reports that coastal fishery resources throughout this area are generally overexploited and overcapitalized. There is also insufficient information to develop defensible assessments of the status of many fish populations in the Indian Ocean or to estimate what sustainable fishing levels might be (Weber 1998).

Commercial fisheries use a variety of gear types, including demersal longlines, wire-mesh fish traps, and bottom trawls, to catch snappers. Demersal longlines are most commonly used off Central America (FAO 1996). Caribbean fisheries traditionally use fish traps. Efforts are underway by groups like ReefKeeper International to eliminate fish traps because of concerns that they destroy reef habitats (The Heinz Center 2000a; Stone 2001b). In many areas of the world, fishers also capture reef fish species using dynamite (e.g., blast fishing), cyanide and other poisonous chemicals, and muro-ami netting, which involves pounding reefs with weighted bags to scare fish out of crevices (Bryant et al. 1998).

Some snapper fisheries, such as deep-reef slope fisheries in Hawaii and the central-south Pacific, use handlines, which are not detrimental to habitats. The majority of snapper available in U.S. markets, however, is from Caribbean and Latin American countries (NMFS 2/13/2005), which likely employ habitat-damaging gears.

Snapper habitat is under significant threat from human activities. Overfishing, coastal development, marine pollution, runoff from inland deforestation, and farming threaten almost 60% of the world’s coral reefs. Over a million reef-associated species may face extinction within the coming 4 decades due to loss of habitat. Almost two-thirds of the mapped coral reefs along the Central American coast and in the Caribbean are at risk; of those, one-third are at high risk. Pacific reefs are in the best shape, but reef communities off southeastern Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and Hawaii face significant human pressures, including overfishing (Bryant et al. 1998). Coral-reef ecosystems are also threatened by natural factors, including storms and hurricanes (HI DLNR 2001b) and climate changes resulting from El Nino Southern Oscillation events and global warming (Wilkinson 2001), all of which leave reefs more vulnerable to human disturbances (Bryant et al. 1998).

Some progress has been made in reducing the impacts of snapper fisheries on habitat in the U.S. Fish traps have been banned in the South Atlantic reef-fish fishery (The Heinz Center 2000b) and are being phased out of the Gulf of Mexico reef-fish fishery (Fish Rapper 1999). The South Atlantic Council has also outlawed bottom trawling in certain areas, such as the Oculina Bank (Heiss 1999).

However, little is being done outside the U.S. to reduce the impacts of snapper fishing on important reef habitats, so we chose to subtract here.

Coral reef ecosystems naturally recover very slowly from degradation.

Snapper species are generally sedentary and residential (Coleman, pers. comm., 10/15/03) and rely on a range of habitat types, including coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves, oyster reefs, and marshes (AFS 2001). Some species, including Vermilion, Blackfin, Silk, Red, Black and Queen Snappers (SAFMC 1999) move offshore to deep-water reefs and rocky ledges as they grow and mature. Other species, such as Gray, Mutton, Schoolmaster, Lane, Cubera, Mahogany and Dog Snappers, prefer to inhabit shallow inshore and/or reef areas. Yellowtail Snapper is a semi-pelagic wanderer over reef habitats (SAFMC 1999).

Because many snapper species are sedentary, habitat health is particularly important. Yet, important habitat areas for snappers are generally not protected. However, U.S. fisheries, which supply about 25% of snapper to U.S. markets (NMFS 2/13/2005), have made efforts to protect juvenile and adult snapper habitat. West Pacific fishery managers have established no-take zones in critical snapper habitats. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coral reef fishes, including snappers in the Caribbean, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico, has been described, and measures for protecting EFH from fishing effects, are pending action by the respective fishery management councils (CFMC 2003; GMFMC 2003).

Commercial reef-fish fisheries around the world are poorly regulated (Bryant et al. 1998). Most are composed of small-boat fisheries, which are difficult to monitor (FAO 2000). For example, more than 750,000 artisanal fishers land about half of the total catch in Brazil (Weber 1998). The diversity of fisheries, along with major social and economic change, institutional chaos, and heavy fishing pressure have led to widespread overfishing in Brazil. Although legislation and regulations exist, they have little practical effect on fisheries (Weber 1998).

Fishery agencies in Latin America and the Caribbean have generally been downsized and transferred to lower levels of government, with limited functions and administrative responsibilities. Presently, a few occur at the Ministerial level (e.g., Cuba and Peru) and some at an under-Ministerial level (e.g., Mexico). However, most fisheries management in Central and South America and the Caribbean is relegated to lower-level fishery divisions (e.g., Panama), fishery service departments (e.g., Brazil), or fishery offices (e.g., Caribbean countries). Many have difficulty carrying out their management duties (FAO 1996). For example, fishery management authorities in Panama report that they cannot prevent high levels of illegal fishing, which is putting snapper populations at risk (FIS 2002).

U.S. fisheries are generally managed with size and gear restrictions, seasonal and area closures, and some with limited entry and catch quotas. But poor state-federal coordination has been a barrier to effective management in some U.S. regions, such as the Caribbean, where the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico extends nine nautical miles from shore (The Heinz Center 2000a).

Since three-fourths of the snapper available in U.S. markets is imported (NMFS 2/13/2005), we chose to award the low score of 1.00 here.

The information required to assess the status of populations is not available for most snapper species. Where catch and life history data are available and utilized in population assessments, they are generally believed to be inadequate (AFS 2001; FAO 1996).

Commercial catches are generally monitored by industry reports and sometimes supplemented by shore-side sampling, but fishery-dependent data are believed to be poor in many regions, including Latin America, the Caribbean and New Zealand (The Heinz Center 2000a; FAO 1996). A limited amount of landings data is collected in the Western Central Atlantic region and most of the Southwest Atlantic region, including Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, and the Falkland Islands. In Latin America, lack of funding for national research institutions has resulted in a drastic reduction in programs and, in some countries, like Brazil, national research institutions have been dismantled. As a result, fisheries increasingly rely on universities to meet their research needs (FAO 1996).

In the U.S., the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has made efforts to improve monitoring programs. For example, the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey was recently expanded to the U.S. Caribbean (The Heinz Center 2000a). Also, NMFS recently approved measures to establish an electronic vessel monitoring system for the fish trap fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and to institute a vessel inspection program that will allow federal officials to cut down on the illegal take of snappers in the lobster and stone crab trap fisheries (Fish Rapper 1999).

Catch data for fisheries in the Indian Ocean are very poor. For example, Myanmar identifies 593,966 metric tons (mt) of its 606,471 mt landings simply as “marine fishes not elsewhere included” (Weber 1998). The catch of recreational and subsistence user groups is largely unmonitored, although their catch in some regions equals or exceeds the commercial catch (FishNet USA 2000; WPFMC 2003).

We chose to subtract points here because most snapper available in U.S. markets is from poorly monitored fisheries and populations.

Because the status of most snapper populations worldwide is unknown, most are not being managed to achieve specific rebuilding goals. Rebuilding plans are in place for Red and Vermilion Snappers in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC 2004a, b).

Commercial reef-fish fisheries around the world are generally overcapitalized (Bryant et al. 1998). Overall, overcapitalization is widespread, but some efforts are in place to reduce fishing effort.

Bermuda closed its $2 million pot fishing industry in 1990, compensating commercial fishermen for the cost of their gear and lost revenue (Bryant et al. 1998). Other countries, such as Venezuela, Trinidad, and Tobago, are taking pre-emptive measures to contain fishing capacity at sustainable levels (FAO 1996).

In the U.S., proposed amendments to fishery management plans in the Gulf and South Atlantic include efforts to implement capacity reduction measures and individual quotas (GMFMC 2003; SAFMC 2003). The Gulf of Mexico Council has considered introducing Individual Transferable Quotas to the Red Snapper fishery in the gulf (GMFMC 2004c).

Despite headway by U.S. fisheries managers in reducing excess capacity in snapper fisheries, we chose to subtract here, based on the lack of progress in global fisheries that supply the majority of snapper to U.S. markets.

Quantitative estimates of bycatch are not available for most snapper fisheries. Non-selective blast fishing, cyanide poisoning, muro-ami netting, demersal longlines, and trawls used to catch snappers also kill large numbers of juveniles and non-target species (The Heinz Center 2000b; Bryant et al. 1998).

In American or U.S. Caribbean reef fisheries, managers do not generally monitor bycatch, and discard mortality is unknown. Although U.S. law requires monitoring, accounting and reduction of bycatch, conservation advocates report that little has been done but planning (Oceana 2003). In a report on bycatch in the U.S., the National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS) characterized bycatch and discards in snapper and other reef fish fisheries as “high” (NMFS 1998). Another NMFS report documented a discard rate of 65% of fish captured in Northern Gulf of Mexico fish traps and stated that the discard rate in the Florida Keys was likely even higher (Fish Rapper 1999).

In the U.S., the South Atlantic Council has taken the most active approach to reducing bycatch in snapper and grouper fisheries, by implementing regulations that prohibit the use of trawl gear, entanglement nets, and fish traps (SAFMC 1999). The Gulf Council has moved to eliminate trap fishing over a period of ten years (Fish Rapper 1999). However, relying on conventional management measures, such as trip limits, size and species restrictions is likely to continue to result in unavoidable and unacceptable levels of bycatch, regardless of the gear type used (AFS 2001).

Measures to reduce bycatch are not being taken throughout the range where snappers are caught. Since the majority of snapper in U.S. markets is imported from countries that do not regulate bycatch, we chose to subtract here.

Reef-fish fisheries include catches of non-targeted species, including Goliath and Nassau Grouper, which are severely depleted in some regions (AFS 2001; The Heinz Center 2000b).

Worldwide, shrimp trawl fisheries capture and discard snappers, including juvenile snappers (Alverson 1998). Red Snapper are most susceptible to capture at age 0 in shrimp trawls, which take roughly 70% of any year class (Coleman, pers. comm., 10/15/03).

Several countries, including the United States, Mexico, and Brazil have moved to reduce snapper and other finfish bycatch in shrimp fisheries by mandating the use of various bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in shrimp trawl nets. Although such regulations are not always universally applied (FAO 1996), lower fishing levels and a greater use of selective gear, such as BRDs, in shrimp trawls likely caused a worldwide decline in the 1990s in the discard mortality of snapper species (Alverson 1998).