Tuna Tension: NOAA's Overreach Faces Legal & Ethical Questions

In the ongoing controversy surrounding NOAA Fisheries’ enforcement against anglers catching tuna from shore in North Carolina, new questions have emerged—not just about policy, but about the very rule of law in American fisheries management. The legal landscape has been muddied further by the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act (ATCA), a piece of legislation originally meant to bring U.S. tuna policy in line with international conservation efforts. Instead, it has created a gateway for federal agencies to assert jurisdiction right up to the water’s edge—territory traditionally policed by state agencies.

At the heart of the issue is a puzzling interpretation of law. NOAA claims that because there is no existing regulation that explicitly allows tuna to be caught from the shoreline, it is therefore illegal. This logic appears to invert the basic American legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” In most legal frameworks, actions are considered lawful unless they are specifically prohibited. That’s the foundation of a free society: laws define crimes, not the absence of laws.

Yet in this case, NOAA is suggesting that if something isn’t explicitly authorized, it’s automatically a violation. That interpretation doesn’t sit well with legal scholars familiar with the doctrine of the rule of law, which insists that government actions must be based on clear, codified, and consistently applied regulations—not agency discretion or shifting interpretations.

Further complicating NOAA’s stance is a 2021 incident on Martha’s Vineyard that exposes the inconsistency in enforcement. As reported by the Vineyard Gazette, a bluefin tuna was legally caught from the beach by a surf angler targeting false albacore. The fish was weighed at a local tackle shop, witnessed by numerous people, and reported in the media. At the time, NOAA made no move to sanction or penalize the angler. When asked recently why this previous case was permitted, the agency declined to comment, stating they “do not have sufficient details about that news report to comment.”

That non-answer raises more questions than it resolves. If NOAA is now pursuing legal action or threats against shore-based tuna anglers in North Carolina, why was the Vineyard catch acceptable? Why are these fish and these fishermen now being targeted?

These questions deserve clarity, especially in light of ATCA’s broadened federal scope. Originally passed in 1975, the Act was meant to implement U.S. commitments under the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). While the original goal was to manage tuna stocks on the high seas, enforcement has drifted closer to shore—sometimes literally landing on the backs of surfcasters who never imagined their local beach would fall under federal scrutiny.

As more anglers find themselves facing uncertainty, fines, or worse for actions that were once routine, the entire fishing community is left asking: What exactly is the law? Who does it serve? And why now?

For NOAA to maintain the trust and cooperation of coastal communities, it must clearly define its rules, ensure they are consistently applied, and resist interpreting silence in regulation as criminality. Anything less risks eroding not just fishing rights—but the very foundation of fairness under the law.