Social media shines light on the "hidden" impact of nighttime guided-gigging charters on Texas' Southern Flounder fishery: A stab in the dark.

Southern Flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) populations are declining in the Gulf of Mexico basin. This is particularly true in Texas, where this unique and culturally important fishery has been in decline since the 1980s despite increasingly stringent regulatory measures. Current angler-intercept creel surveys used to estimate recreational flounder harvest levels are conducted during daylight hours and do not account for the high levels of nighttime flounder gigging (spearing) activity, a popular and efficient harvest method for this fishery. There are legitimate scientific and logistical concerns that have prevented the use of wide-spread nighttime creel surveys to monitor the flounder gigging fishery in the past, however this has made accurate catch and effort estimates difficult to obtain. Given the concern about this economically important fishery's status, we adopted a unique approach utilizing social media to provide unprecedented information into this fishery's impact during periods that are not traditionally monitored. Specifically, we reconstructed seasonal flounder harvest and effort metrics stemming from the nighttime recreational guided flounder gigging sector over 2.6 years using guided flounder gigging charter photo archives publicly available through Facebook. These metrics show large average client party sizes, large trip harvests, and near-perfect bag limit efficiencies. Temporal trends indicated peak recreational guided flounder gigging effort and harvest occurs during the summer months, a time not traditionally associated with flounder gigging. The addition of nighttime guided-gigging recreational harvest estimates from this study to traditional daytime harvest estimates and commercial harvest estimates resulted in total annual harvest estimates nearly two times greater than current estimates. Overall, this study demonstrates the high pressure guided-gigging charters are placing on Texas' flounder fishery and illustrates the critical need for additional information on the nighttime recreational flounder fishery for both guided and private gigging anglers. Moreover, our results also demonstrate the usefulness of mining social media platforms to capture catch and effort data that are otherwise unavailable.

1—Introduction

Southern Flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) are an estuarine-dependent species best known for their late fall spawning migrations (October-December) and are among the most targeted fish in Texas marine waters [1-4]. Historically, Southern Flounder have supported an important multimillion-dollar commercial and recreational fishery along the Texas coast and the broader Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) [5, 6]; however, the Gulf’s, especially Texas’, Southern Flounder populations have been in steady decline since the 1980s prompting numerous management revisions aimed at reducing harvest and effort in the fishery [7-9]. Despite these regulatory changes, Southern Flounder have continued to experience an overall decline [8, 10, 11].

Texas’ Southern Flounder populations support economically important commercial and recreational fisheries in which gigging at night (spearing by lighted means) is the predominant harvesting method [12]. Flounder gigging is also culturally important as a popular and time-honored tradition along the Texas coast. Historically, gigging was a nighttime activity most often practiced during the fall migration season when Southern Flounder concentrate in tidal passes while migrating offshore to spawn [13]. Traditional gigging equipment most often consists of a multi-pronged spear (gig), hand-held light or lantern, and requires participants to wade shallow water in search of fish [14]. However, rapid advances in shallow water boat capabilities and illumination technology have led to the development of specialized flounder gigging boats that are very common and extremely efficient in this fishery. These boats often utilize halogen or LED light systems powered by generators or batteries. Furthermore, these boats can navigate extremely shallow water using air-cooled engines powering small airplane propellers known as “push fans.” The new technology on these specialized vessels allows large groups of anglers to cover miles of shallow water in search of flounder over an incredibly short period of time. The ability to efficiently search large areas has eliminated the need to wait for flounder to congregate during the fall spawning migration, resulting in increased fishing pressure on flounder year-round. These technological advancements have also given rise to numerous for-hire guided-gigging charters in which charter captains take paying clients to harvest Southern Flounder. Guided-gigging charters perceive the Texas flounder population as healthy as was observed at numerous Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) flounder regulation scoping meetings in 2019 (Q. A. Hall, pers. obs). This contrasts with scientific data from TPWD’s fishery-independent surveys demonstrating long-term declines. These charters have led to controversy within the recreational fishery and present a unique challenge to fisheries management. The decline of Southern Flounder in Texas is commonly attributed to poor recruitment related to changing climate patterns and adult overharvest, yet the relative importance of these two factors remains unresolved. TPWD fishery-independent surveys have revealed a long-term decline of Southern Flounder recruitment in Texas bays coinciding with coastwide increases in water temperature during the spawning season (November-February) [8, 11]. Growth and survival of newly hatched Southern Flounder larvae in Texas waters is greatest at 18°C and highly sensitive to relatively small changes in temperature (± 2°C) [15]. Southern Flounder also have environmental sex determination with masculinization at warmer temperatures [9, 16, 17]. Because female Southern Flounder attain larger sizes than males (and consequently dominate fishery harvest), temperature-driven changes in sex ratios would also alter the size structure and biomass of the population [18]. Thus, increases in water temperature could have substantial negative effects on the recruitment, population size and demographics of Southern Flounder [18, 19]. For example, Texas’ Southern Flounder populations continue to decline in the Sabine Lake (north) and Lower Laguna Madre (south) bay systems despite more limited fishing effort (perceived) relative to the central Texas coast [20].

Although poor recruitment and changing sex ratios have likely contributed to reduced population abundance, Froeschke et al. [11], using data from TPWD fishery-independent surveys (1975–2008), determined that adult, (≥290 mm total length (TL)) [10, 13], Southern Flounder are declining twice as fast as juveniles. This indicates that the larger decline seen in the adult population may be less related to recruitment limitation and could be a result of overfishing and incidental bycatch in commercial shrimp trawl fisheries. However, historical Southern Flounder bycatch in the Texas commercial shrimp trawl fishery was primarily composed of juveniles [21-23] and bycatch reduction device requirements in Texas state and Gulf of Mexico federal waters since 1998 have become more efficient at excluding larger individuals [6]. In 2002, Texas implemented a commercial limited entry and buy-back program of shrimp vessels, which reduced overall bycatch by at least 80% [23]. In comparison, Froeschke et al. [11] reported the overall mean size of adult Southern Flounder captured in fishery-independent surveys was 360 mm TL, which is remarkably close to the 14-inch (356 mm TL) minimum size limit established in 1996 (recently increased to 15-inches [381 mm TL] in 2020) for recreational and commercial fisheries. Thus, the reported decline in adult Southern Flounder abundance at size classes exceeding the minimum size limit is likely attributed more to targeted fishing pressure than bycatch; though, increased natural mortality of larger adults is also a contributing factor [11]. Given this information, additional research is critically needed to determine factors contributing to overfishing and promote sustainable management strategies for Southern Flounder in Texas [19].

In Texas, TPWD is responsible for monitoring Southern Flounder harvest and effort by the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery. While commercial harvest reporting includes all fishing activity (i.e., day/night, gear type), routine harvest monitoring of the recreational sector through the Texas Marine Sport-Harvest Monitoring Program employs angler-intercept surveys at boat access sites only during daytime hours (1000 to 1800 hours) [20, 24, 25]. Past studies have revealed that significant numbers of Southern Flounder are harvested at night by gig anglers that are not intercepted during routine daytime surveys, which could result in severely underestimating harvest patterns of Southern Flounder [13, 14, 26]. Additionally, Olsen and Wagner [14], discuss that limited nighttime creel surveys conducted by TPWD had much lower survey efficiencies than traditional daytime creel surveys. This further complicates the development of effective nighttime recreational harvest and effort monitoring strategies, leading to recreational gigging activities occurring almost completely unmonitored.

Previous TPWD estimates of nighttime flounder gigging effort indicate recreational anglers account for the majority of effort (83–89%) and 53% of landings compared to commercial operations [20]. However, the lack of replication (sampling only a few months in a single year) and data collection date (1991 and 2007) of these studies prevent conclusions about the annual seasonality and magnitude of nighttime flounder gigging effort and harvest, highlighting the critical need for updated information for this nighttime fishery. Most guided-gigging charters begin operating at 1900 hours or later and operate year-round. Thus, nighttime recreational gigging harvest remains unaccounted for in recreational harvest estimates [14, 20]. Given the concern about this economically important fishery’s status and the lack of nighttime recreational harvest data, analyses based on non-traditional data sources may provide unprecedented information into this fishery sector’s impact.

Recently, novel approaches are increasingly used to extract publicly available, open-source information from social media platforms to reveal new insights into the study of particular species [27-30] and address conservation issues [31, 32]. Many guided-gigging charters advertise by sharing photos of their client’s catch at the end of a trip on social media, particularly on Facebook. Some of these photo archives are extensive and include several years’ worth of catch photos containing harvest data, client party size, and temporal information. Thus, social media provides a unique opportunity to quantify nighttime guided-gigging harvest and effort metrics during periods that are not traditionally monitored. Given the large data gaps described above, we used guided-gigging charter photo archives on Facebook to provide a novel characterization of the guided-gigging component of the nighttime recreational flounder fishery in Texas. The specific objectives of this study were to: (1). Estimate seasonal flounder harvest and effort metrics associated with guided flounder gigging charters within Texas waters; (2). Compare metrics from this study to traditional flounder harvest estimates generated by the TPWD; (3). Provide managers with potential approaches to curb Southern Flounder population declines within the state based on this new information.

2—Methods

Guided-gigging charter selection

There are no official records detailing how many licensed charter captains operate guided-gigging charters in Texas. As such, an internet search using all combinations of the terms “gigging”, “guide”, “service”, “flounder”, and “Texas” covering fishing forums, outdoor classified boards, social media platforms, and general search engines was conducted in April 2020 to determine an estimated number of licensed captains offering guided-gigging charters in Texas. From the 21 guided-gigging businesses located, a subset of three was selected to obtain data for this study. Each was selected given that their businesses’ Facebook pages housed photo archives containing hundreds of photos documenting flounder gigging trips dating back to mid-April 2017. All three guided-gigging charters operate gigging boats along the central Texas coast, as this high-effort geographic area is of particular interest to managers [20]. It is worth noting that none of these charters operate in the Galveston Bay system, which is frequently associated with high levels of recreational flounder effort (albeit historically rod and reel) [33]. With limited available data, we assumed these charter operations were representative of average guided-gigging businesses. Photo archives from May 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, were selected as this period contained the longest continuous interval in which extensive photo records could be found for each of the three selected charters and provided appropriate replication to determine seasonal pressure, another area of particular interest for managers [20]. Photo data were quantified in April 2020.

Data processing

Each photo was assumed to represent an individual charter trip (usually confirmed based on photo description or client party size), and all fish pictured were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible and counted. We did not attempt to distinguish between Southern Flounder and Gulf Flounder (P. albigutta) as TPWD manages both species collectively [34], and Southern Flounder represent 95% of flounder harvested within Texas waters [1, 11]. Additional species that can be legally taken by gigging (hereafter referred to as ancillary species) include Black Drum (Pogonias cromis), Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula), Florida Pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), and stingrays (Dasyatis spp.). The vertical bars on juvenile Black Drum may be morphologically similar to those on Sheepshead. Consequently, individual Black Drum and Sheepshead that could not be easily distinguished due to poor image quality were collectively referred to as “unidentified fish.” Blue Crabs (Callinectes sapidus) were also harvested, but they were not examined in this study as it proved too difficult to enumerate them in the photos. The number of clients visible within the photo was also recorded. Trips were assumed to have occurred on the day each picture was posted unless otherwise specified in the photo description. It was also assumed that each guide posted photos of every trip they conducted each year. While unlikely, this assumption is biased towards conservative harvest estimates. Charter trip photo duplicates were identifiable by pictured clients, boat ramp locations, and fish counts. In addition, several guides also posted commercial flounder gigging photos. These photos, along with charter trip duplicates, were discarded from subsequent analyses. For each photo, two independent readers made blind counts of each species present and the number of clients. When counts differed, the photo was jointly examined to reach a consensus. Several photos were posted on closed season dates, however associated comments specified these trips had taken place earlier during the open season. All data used in this study were publicly available through social media and remain anonymous with no collection of personal information.

The Texas flounder fishing regulations that were in place during the study period stipulated that no flounder could be taken by gigging from November 1–30, and only two flounder per person per day could be taken by any means from December 1–14 (hereafter the “restricted season”). A total of five flounder per person per day could be taken by any means for the remainder of the year (hereafter the “regular season”) [34]. During this study, the regular season ran 321 legal fishing days each calendar year, exclusive of the 30-day closure in November and 14-day restricted season during the beginning of December. Because this study began on May 1, 2017, only 201 legal fishing days were surveyed during the regular season for that year for a grand total of 843 legal fishing days from 2017–2019. A grand total of 42 legal fishing days were surveyed for the restricted season from 2017–2019. Data were analyzed separately according to their respective season.

Trip metrics

As individual trip length (i.e., number of hours spent gigging) was unknown, fishing effort was reported as the estimated number of guided fishing trips. The average number of trips per season was calculated for each guide and then averaged across all guides. In addition, the average number of trips per legal fishing day was calculated to determine what percentage of legal days guides chartered a least one trip in a given season. These metrics were divided by the number of legal fishing days within each season to determine the average number of trips taken by each guide on any legal fishing day. There were several instances in which the number of flounder exceeded the daily bag limit for a guided fishing party based on the number of clients pictured. We firmly believe this was not due to illegal activity, but rather that not all clients were pictured. This assumption was further supported by multiple Facebook post comments explaining that certain clients did not want to be pictured. Other comments explained that some trips were one flounder short of a limit because the guide miscounted and thought the limit had already been reached. Given this evidence, we were confident each of the surveyed guides operated within the law. Thus, guided fishing party size could be estimated by the total number of observed flounder. Accordingly, the number of observed flounder for each trip was divided by the daily bag limit for the corresponding season to estimate party size for trips in which the total number of flounder exceeded the legal bag limit based on the number of clients pictured. The average number of clients per trip per season was calculated for each guide and then averaged across all guides.

Harvest metrics

The average number of flounder harvested per trip each season was calculated for each guide and then averaged across all guides. The observed number of flounder harvested was divided by the bag limit for a guided fishing party (based on party size and seasonal regulations) to determine the average percentage of a trip limit harvested on each trip. The percentage of trips harvesting ancillary species was calculated for each season in addition to the average number of ancillary fish harvested per trip across all guides. Following Ajemian et al. [35], a monthly catch proportion was calculated for each species (the number of individuals of a species harvested in a single month divided by the total number of individuals harvested in that same month), excluding flounder. For each guide, monthly catch proportions were averaged across years, and the resulting values were averaged across all three guides.

Temporal trends

Temporal trends in the number of trips, flounder harvested per trip, total flounder harvested, and clients per trip, were assessed by calculating average monthly values per year for each guide and then averaging across years, accounting for the lack of data for January-April 2017. These monthly average values were pooled to calculate averages (± standard error) across all guides.

Traditional flounder harvest estimate comparison

Daytime recreational and commercial flounder harvest data from 2017–2019 were obtained through TPWD’s Marine Sport-Harvest Monitoring Program and commercial harvest reporting system, respectively. Through the Marine Sport-Harvest Monitoring Program, harvest and effort are estimated from angler-intercept surveys conducted during daytime hours (1000–1800 hours) throughout the year in each of the eight major Texas bay systems (see Green [33] for additional details). Commercial harvest was estimated based on trip ticket reporting and was provided in pounds total weight per year [36]. To estimate the number of fish harvested by the commercial fleet each year, total weight values were divided by 2.0 pounds which is the average weight for flounder harvested in Texas’ commercial flounder fishery [8]. Collectively, these datasets estimate flounder total annual harvest for daytime private and guided recreational harvest as well as commercial harvest. To compare these estimates with annual nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest, we calculated mean (± standard error) annual guide flounder harvest by averaging total flounder harvest across all three guides. Total annual nighttime guided recreational harvest (± standard error) was then estimated by multiplying the mean annual guide flounder harvest by the number of gigging guides identified through our internet search following [37]. It is uncertain whether all of the statewide guided-gigging charters harvest at a similar average annual rate to the three guided-gigging charters analyzed in this study. To address this potential sampling bias, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine how different numbers of statewide guided-gigging charters affect the total annual nighttime guided recreation harvest compared to daytime private and guided recreational harvest and commercial harvest.

3—Results

A total of 1618 photos were read, representing 1385 unique guided-gigging trips surveyed during the 2.6 regular seasons (excluding January-April 2017) included in the study period and an additional 64 trips surveyed during the three restricted seasons. Guides averaged 153.9 (SE = 29.4) trips each regular season (54% of legal fishing days) and 7.1 (SE = 2.2) trips each restricted season (52% of legal fishing days), or approximately one trip every two days (Table 1). The average party size per trip was estimated to be 3.9 (SE = 0.1) clients during the regular season and 4.3 (SE = 0.3) clients during the restricted season (Table 1).

Table 1

Trip and harvest summary.

Summary of Nighttime Guided Recreational Flounder Gigging Trip and Harvest Data by Season
	Regular Season	Restricted Season
Total Number of Trips Surveyed	1385	64.0
Avg. Number Trips/season/guide	153.89	7.1
Avg. Number Trips/legal fishing day/guide	0.54	0.52
Avg. Number Clients/trip/guide	3.9	4.3
Total Number Harvested Flounder Observed	24899	506
Avg. Number Flounder Harvested/trip/guide	18.2	8.5
Avg. Total Number Flounder Harvested/season/guide	2766.6	56.2
Avg. % of allowable trip limit harvested/trip	95.2%	98.6%
Percentage of trips harvesting ancillary species	61.3%	76.6%
Avg. number of ancillary fish harvested/trip/guide	2.1	5.7

Summary of Nighttime Guided Recreational Flounder Gigging Trip and Harvest Data by Season accounting for lack of January-April 2017 data. The Texas flounder fishing regulations that were in place during the study period stipulated that no flounder could be taken by gigging from November 1–30, and only two flounder per person per day could be taken by any means from December 1–14 (restricted season). A total of five flounder per person per day could be taken by any means for the remainder of the year (regular season).

Among the three guides surveyed, a total of 24,899 and 506 flounder were harvested during regular and restricted seasons, respectively, during the study period. Each guide harvested an average of 18.2 flounder per trip and reached their limit 95.2% of trips during the regular season (Table 1). In contrast, an average of 8.5 flounder were harvested per trip and party limits were reached 98.6% of trips during the restricted season. Each year, an average of 2766.6 flounder were harvested during the regular season, and an average of 56.2 flounder were harvested during the restricted season by each guided charter. Flounder accounted for 67.7% (January) to 93.8% (June) of average monthly catch proportions. In addition to flounder, 61.3% of regular-season trips harvested ancillary species, with an average of 2.1 fish per trip (Table 1). In contrast, 76.6% of restricted-season trips harvested ancillary species, with an average of 5.7 fish per trip (Table 1). Average monthly catch proportions (excluding flounder) indicate that Sheepshead and Black Drum comprised the majority of harvested ancillary species (Fig 1). These values ranged from 32.1% (January) to 77.9% (May) for Sheepshead and 11.9% (May) to 67.9% (January) for Black Drum. Unidentified species (comprised of indistinguishable Sheepshead and Black Drum) accounted for an additional 0% (January-February) to 10.2% (May) of average monthly catch proportions of ancillary species. Alligator Gar, Florida Pompano, and stingray harvest infrequently occurred (0% to 2.4% of average monthly catch) and only during particular months of the year.

Fig 1

Ancillary species catch proportions (excluding flounder).

Average monthly catch proportions (excluding flounder) of ancillary species (coded by color and pattern) for guided-gigging charters over the study period. Gigging is not allowed in November.

Monthly effort for guided-gigging charters was highest from March (17.8 trips/guide) to August (17.1 trips/guide), with a peak in July (26.6 trips/guide) (Fig 2A). A secondary peak in average trip numbers occurred in October (19.2 trips/guide), coinciding with the start of the flounder spawning migration and the last month before the November gigging closure (Fig 2A). The average number of clients per trip peaked in the restricted season (December 1–14) at 4.32 clients/trip. The average number of clients per trip remained steady between March (3.8 clients/trip) and July (4.3 clients/trip) (Fig 2B). The average number of flounder harvested per trip peaked in July (20.2 flounder/trip); though, trip harvest levels remained remarkably consistent from March to July, ranging between 18.0 to 20.2 flounder/trip (Fig 3A). Moreover, we note the smaller standard errors indicate a high level of consistency with which guided-gigging charters harvest flounder within these months. The highest average monthly harvest occurred between March (320.2 flounder/guide) and August (310.8 flounder/guide), with a peak in July (534.3 flounder/guide) (Fig 3B).

Fig 2

Monthly trip and client size estimates.

(A) The average number of trips taken per guide and (B) the average number of clients per trip during each month of the study period accounting for data missing between January-April 2017. Error bars represent the standard error among individual guides.

Fig 3

Monthly trip and flounder harvest estimates.

(A) The average number of flounder harvested per trip and (B) the average total flounder harvest per guide during each month of the study period accounting for data missing between January-April 2017. Error bars represent the standard error among individual guides.

We identified a total of 21 licensed charter captains that operate guided-gigging charters targeting Southern Flounder in Texas waters. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that if one additional nighttime guided-gigging charter (19% of identified charters) operates at the same average annual rate as the three charters we surveyed in this study, the annual nighttime guided-gigging Southern Flounder harvest would exceed the total annual daytime guided recreational harvest in 2017–2019 (Fig 4). Notably, the three charters we surveyed in this study alone exceed the total annual daytime guided recreational harvest in 2018 by 5,595 (228%) Southern Flounder. Similarly, if one additional nighttime guided-gigging charter operates at the same average annual rate as the three charters we surveyed in this study, the annual nighttime guided-gigging Southern Flounder harvest would exceed the total annual commercial harvest in 2018 and 2019. The total annual commercial Southern Flounder harvest was highest in 2017 (19,922 flounder) and would require seven additional nighttime guided-gigging charters (48% of identified charters) to operate at the same average annual rate as the three charters we surveyed in this study to match that harvest estimate; however, our nighttime guided-gigging harvest estimate is likely an underestimate given photos were only available from May-December for that year. The nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest estimate will meet or exceed the total annual daytime private recreational harvest estimates for 2018 and 2019 if twelve additional nighttime guided-gigging charters (71% of identified charters) operate at the same average annual rate as the three charters we surveyed in this study.

Fig 4

Traditional statewide flounder harvest comparison.

Traditional statewide annual flounder harvest estimates for the daytime guided (black dashed line) and private (red dashed line) recreational fishery and commercial fishery (blue dashed line) compared to the nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest estimates (black solid line) generated in this study for (A) 2017, (B) 2018, and (C) 2019. Nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest was estimated across the range of identified flounder gigging guides operating in the state of Texas. Shaded areas represent the standard error associated with our estimates. Vertical dashed lines denote the intersection of traditional statewide annual harvest estimates with the nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest estimates. *Note: data were not available for January-April of 2017; thus, nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest in 2017 is underestimated.

4—Discussion

The Texas Southern Flounder population is facing a serious and prolonged decline and has not responded to increased regulations. We suggest this decline is likely due in part to uncaptured catch and effort occurring during the nighttime recreational gigging fishery. Managers have been hindered by data gaps from the nighttime guided gigging component of the recreational flounder fishery. Despite a limited sample size, this study highlights the efficiency of this component of the recreational flounder fishery and demonstrates that excluding estimates of nighttime gigging harvest, particularly from guided-gigging charters, results in severely underestimating harvest patterns of Southern Flounder in Texas. Notably, this fishery’s efficiency has dramatically increased with advances in modern recreational flounder gigging boat technology compared to historical wade-gigging. As a result, the disconnect between TPWD fishery-independent gill net data (long-term decline) and gigging guides’ perceptions of the fishery (healthy) may be a byproduct of the extreme efficiency of this fishery and hyper-stable catches despite a declining population (e.g., [38]). Specifically, gigging guides may not observe declining catch rates and still reach their limit consistently because of the improved efficiency and creeping increase of their fishing power [39] that now allows a boat to cover miles in search of flounder over a relatively short time. Similarly, newer or younger guides may not perceive any changes because of shifting baselines [40]. We encourage that additional management resources be devoted to refining the quantifiable impacts that gigging boats (private and charter) have on Texas’ recreational flounder fishery.

This study demonstrates how social media platforms may provide an open-source research tool to collect extensive data for harvest monitoring and aid the development of management priorities. Though, the information obtained from social media includes potential limitations and biases that need to be accounted for when utilizing such an approach [31]. For example, a limited number of guided-gigging charters regularly post on social media and intentionally exclude sharing spatial information on catch and effort. In addition, social media posts may be biased towards trips with higher catch rates, especially when posts are used for advertisement. In this case, the sampling bias would conservatively estimate overall trip and harvest metrics but potentially overestimate the average harvest per trip. Despite these limitations, these data revealed considerably large harvest estimates that are currently unaccounted for and further highlight the need for additional monitoring. For these reasons, pursuing a standardized quantification of recreational fishing effort and catches is of critical importance. Alongside traditional creel surveys, smart device applications have proven to be an effective and robust method for collecting data from recreational anglers to calculate more accurate harvest and effort estimates; though, these applications require high participation and user buy-in to be useful [25, 41].

Commercial fisheries have traditionally been identified as a primary driver of declining fish stocks globally; however, this study highlights how intense recreational fishing pressure, especially if inadequately monitored, can equally and even disproportionately contribute to lower fish stocks [42]. Based on the total trips surveyed in this study, results indicate that guided-gigging charters operate on over half the nights available to them during both the regular and restricted seasons and average approximately four clients per trip regardless of the month or harvest season. This consistent effort, combined with large client party sizes, and the fact that flounder may be harvested by gigging 335 days a year (321-day regular season, 14-day restricted season during the study period), indicates that guided-gigging charters have the capacity to exert extreme pressure on Texas’ flounder population. The full extent of this pressure is difficult to calculate at a state level as no official numbers exist on how many guided flounder gigging businesses are currently being operated. Our preliminary internet search revealed that at least 21 licensed guides offer flounder gigging charters within the state; however, we believe this to be an underestimate. Many guided-gigging charters advertise on membership-only fishing forums, roadside signs, and boat ramp flyers, making their absolute number incredibly difficult to estimate. For this reason, requiring fishing guides licensed within the state to declare if they operate a flounder gigging charter service could benefit management.

The advanced capabilities of modern flounder gigging boats must also be considered. Contrary to traditional wade-gigging, gigging boats allow guides to quickly and easily service large client parties while maintaining high average harvest success rates. Across the study period, 95.2% of regular season and 98.6% of restricted season limits were filled each trip, with an average of 18.2 flounder being harvested per trip during the regular season. This average harvest per trip becomes even more important given that multiple Facebook posts within this survey contained information stating that guides conducted as many as three separate trips (different client parties on each trip) per night while only posting pictures from a single trip (i.e., once again indicating that our estimates are likely conservative). In comparison, commercial gigging operations can legally harvest a total of 30 flounder per night in Texas waters [43], suggesting it may become necessary to limit the number of trips any guided-gigging charter can conduct within a 24-hour period. In addition, a large but unknown number of private anglers utilize the same highly efficient gigging boats for personal use. Currently, no data are available on the number of private gigging boats in Texas or on private nighttime gigging-boat harvest metrics. Obtaining data surrounding the private use of gigging boats is crucial to proper management. Despite management concerns, flounder gigging boats do fulfill an important role in the Texas recreational flounder fishery. They provide the public access to a culturally and economically important fishery and can accommodate small children as well as clients with mobility concerns. For these reasons, we encourage their continued use, albeit in a more monitored and regulated capacity.

Our results indicated that 61.3% of regular season and 76.6% of restricted season trips harvest ancillary species. However, the number of individual ancillary fish harvested nearly triples during the restricted season. This suggests that guided-gigging charters shift effort to target other species when flounder bag limits are reduced. Likewise, Sheepshead and Black Drum are the most common ancillary species to be harvested throughout the year. Given relatively large daily bag limits, (5 fish per person for each species), managers should consider that these species will likely become the primary focus for guided-gigging charters should flounder bag limits be reduced. Evidence of this shift is becoming apparent during Texas’ new flounder season closure, (closed November 1st-December 14th), which was first enacted during 2021. For example, guided-gigging captains are already using social media to advertise charters specifically targeting ancillary species, mainly Sheepshead and Black Drum, during the new flounder closure, confirming our predictions. Some of these advertisement pictures depict full six-client limits of Sheepshead and claim that the charter operation has harvested over 650 Sheepshead and Black Drum during the six-week flounder closure with party limits on every trip. While managers are not currently concerned with Sheepshead and Black Drum populations, the ability of gigging operations to shift effort to these species must be accounted for in future management decisions. While these data here are too limited to make detailed conclusions, future studies should focus on characterizing the harvest of ancillary species on directed flounder trips.

Perhaps the most interesting portion of this study pertains to peaks in recreational guided-gigging effort and harvest occurring during the summer months, a time not traditionally associated with high flounder gigging effort. The few special surveys aimed at estimating Texas’ recreational flounder effort were conducted in fall or winter months during the spawning migration, a period historically associated with peak nighttime recreational flounder harvest [14, 20, 26]. These studies likely missed the impacts of actual peak effort occurring during the summer months. The increase in summer guided-gigging pressure is most likely associated with summer tourism and the ability to cover large areas of water using gigging-boats, negating the need to wait for flounder to concentrate in tidal passes during the fall migration.

The discovery that recreational guided-gigging pressure and success is highest during the summer brings new considerations to the forefront of Texas’ flounder management needs. This shift in recreational effort coincides with a historical shift in commercial gigging effort from November to spring in compliance with the November 30-day closure. Guided-gigging charters conduct the most trips and have extremely high success rates during months in which five fish per person per day can be harvested. The displacement of effort to spring and summer months are the unintended consequences of fall harvest and gear restrictions combined with highly efficient fishing technologies, thus demonstrating the adaptive behavior of fishers and creating new challenges to current management strategies [44, 45]. Given overharvesting concerns [11], a year-round reduction of the bag limit, while also keeping the new seasonal closure (i.e., zero flounder bag limit) from November 1st though December 14th (effective 2021), may be appropriate. In addition, data indicate that a smaller peak in effort and harvest levels occurs each October. This is most likely due to the start of the spawning migration and angler anticipation of the November gigging closure. Despite this secondary peak, guided-gigging effort during September, October, and December was lower than they are during summer months, although party bag limit rates were a staggering 98.6%. Based on this evidence, the new annual complete flounder season closure (November 1st-December 14th; starting 2021) may slightly reduce annual guided-gigging harvest, especially of big old fat fecund female fish (BOFFFFs) which have a disproportionate effect on stock productivity and stability [46], while also limiting the economic impact on guided-gigging charters.

Traditional recreational flounder harvest metrics (both guided and private) are considerably lower than our estimate. These traditional recreational harvest estimates are generated using creel survey data that is collected during daytime hours and does not capture gigging effort as it is almost exclusively a nighttime activity. Given that nighttime gigging is the predominant method of recreational flounder harvest, the total annual flounder harvest is likely considerably underestimated. Our sensitivity analyses estimates indicate that for 2018 and 2019, statewide nighttime-guided gigging harvest likely exceeded the daytime-guided and commercial flounder fisheries. We suspect this was the case in 2017 as well, however only a partial year of data was available for analysis. It is worth noting that should all 21 identified gigging guides harvest at our estimated average annual rate, nighttime guided-gigging harvest would approach or exceed the combined total for all components of harvest currently estimated (i.e., TPWD daytime private recreational, TPWD daytime guided recreational, and TPWD commercial). We also note that our estimates only applied to guided recreational gigging. Harvest and effort for the private recreational gigging component remains unknown but is likely high given the large number of participants and high gear efficiency (via private gigging boats). The considerably large nighttime flounder harvest and effort that is currently unaccounted for demonstrates a clear need for additional monitoring and development of novel reporting systems for all components of Texas’ recreational flounder fishery, particularly the nighttime guided and private recreational components as they likely account for the majority of the total annual flounder harvest [20]. It is critical that accurate and current harvest and effort metrics are made available to allow managers to better evaluate existing regulations and ensure a sustainable fishery.

5—Conclusions

Guided-gigging charters appear capable of placing heavy, year-round pressure on the Texas flounder population. Additional information pertaining to statewide nighttime effort, recreational gigging-boat use (both private and guided), and summer harvest, must also be obtained and factored into future management decisions. This study demonstrated how data gathered from social media can greatly inform scientific research and reveal conservation concerns highlighting the need for improved monitoring and management strategies. This methodological approach may be opportunistically applied in other regions worldwide; however, due consideration must be given to potential inherent biases when using social media platforms for data collection, analysis, and interpretation [31]. Ultimately, this study indicates that guided-gigging charter businesses operate within the law and are observant of recreational harvest limits. Thus, we are confident that constructive dialogue between managers and gigging charter captains could lead to effective management changes and a more sustainable recreational flounder fishery in Texas.

21 Feb 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles William Martin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE requires that the research must be described in enough detail to allow readers to fully replicate the study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-3), and that all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript must be fully available (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-7).

Please could you provide the links to the collected material from Facebook and a statement indicating that the use of this dataset was done in compliance to the Facebook Terms and Conditions and our requirements for this type of study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-personal-data-from-third-party-sources).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses a problem that is vitally important to the future management of an important commercial and recreational species that has continued declining across its entire range despite revised management efforts. Fisheries scientists are learning that environmental factors and climate change could potentially explain some of the continued declines. The authors did a good job of addressing and explaining this problem with relevant citations and bring to light a new problem that myself, and I'm sure many other flounder researchers, have pondered for some time. Unreported recreational and private gigging effort is something that is logistically difficult to quantify, thus has not been accurately described in yearly harvest estimates. The authors of this study use novel methods to leverage social media as a tool for quantifying overall effort and catch efficiency of the private for-hire gigging sector of the Texas fishery. The quantified estimates of effort, including number of gigging trips per guide per year (~153), harvest per trip (~18 fish), trip limit efficiency (95%), and annual number of fish harvested per guide (2,766) are important metrics for managers to consider. Many of the points made in paper should be considered in both immediate management and serve to highlight one potential direction of the "next generation" of Southern Flounder research.

The only recommendation I have would be to elaborate further on the assumptions and potential bias of the total nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest estimates. The final estimate of total harvest assumes that the effort and efficiency derived from 3 gigging guides that post the most pictures on social media is evenly distributed across the other 21 guides. Often times the people that post the most are the best at what they do, but this is not always the case. It also assumes that there is sufficient clientele to fill those trips, which, at an average of 4 people per trip x 153 trips per year x 21 guides would be nearly 13 thousand clients per year taking flounder gigging charters in Texas. Again, not unreasonable but the authors should consider the likelihood that this demand exists for flounder gigging charters in Texas. And if it does, or demand is exceeded, it would give a lot of support to the final estimates. Another point that could be made is that the estimates of total private for-hire gigging harvest presented in this paper could actually be conservative when it comes to the overall gigging harvest given that private recreational gigging effort has not been effectively quantified.

In my opinion, this is the only consideration/edit I would recommend. The authors did a good job of acknowledging the assumptions made in other areas of the paper; however, I think it is important to acknowledge the assumption that effort and efficiency is evenly distributed across the rest of the for-hire gigging fleet makes the total nighttime guided recreational gigging harvest estimate on the upper end of what is possible from a fully operational and fully efficient fleet of 21 gigging charter guides.

I also agree with the authors recommendations for obtaining more data from recreational and private gigging; specifically, requiring fishing guides licensed within the state to declare if they operate a flounder gigging charter service. Another way would be mandatory catch reporting similar to MRIP or Snapper Check used in the red snapper fishery. More data on nighttime gigging harvest for areas in the northern Gulf of Mexico is going to be of the upmost concern in the coming years if limit changes, hatchery efforts and spawning season closures implemented in the past couple years are not positively reflected in upcoming stock assessments.

Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for the opportunity to review "Social media shines light on the “hidden” impact of nighttime guided-gigging charters on Texas’ Southern Flounder fishery: A stab in the dark." Overall, I found the manuscript interesting and very likely to be identifying a missing source of fishing mortality in the Texas Southern Flounder fishery. Overall, I think this study could be publishable; however, I have one major comment that gives me pause about the results and interpretation.

Major Comment:

The only major issue I came across while reading this manuscript had to do with some of the assumptions in the methods. Specifically, the authors found the three of the most active gigging operations in the "high effort geographic area" of Texas, and then extrapolated harvest from this small, high-avidity sample size across the entire fishery. As I read it, the estimates that authors come up with are possible, but also represent the upper end of the range of estimates. In this regard, I think the manuscript needs to quantify some of the assumptions that were made. For example, it is plausible that the three guides that were studied were the most active in the guide fishery (at least the authors present this possibility)—so what if other gig guides are not that active? What about if other gig guides don't fish as many days of the year? Or they don't approach the creel limit as often? There are several possible factors that could result in a more heterogeneous gig-guide fishery, and exploring those factors would almost certainly result in a lower estimate than the authors arrived at. I'm not particularly set in one way or another to include this variability. Some of it could be done earlier in the methods if an "avidity" metric could be developed for guides and then applied across the population of guides? Another way could be to stick with the current method and call it an upper estimate. Then, explore what the estimate(s) might be if part of the guide fishery fewer days, and/or creeled fewer fish. What I have in mind is a sort of sensitivity analysis that could explore realistic lower estimates. I don't know what could be called the low-end estimate, but I also don't think the low or high estimate is the story—I think if the range of plausible estimates is still a significant missing piece of the southern flounder fishery, then that is the story. (Or, if a low-end estimate is relatively small, then maybe the gig-guide fishery is not as extractive as thought? Just trying to consider all possible interpretations.)

One smaller issue is that the data are not really available for authors to access. I understand where the authors are coming from by saying that the data are available online, because they mined Facebook. However, as I understand it a reader would need to replicate their study (which is currently not possible; see comments elsewhere), in addition to the fact that the raw data is stored by Facebook, which is a proprietary website in which users can add and remove data. For example, if the gig-guides remove photos or removed their Facebook account, this data would never be available. Perhaps what the authors have done is acceptable based on the PLoS data policy, but in the spirit of open data, this manuscript does not have data available for readers. I don't think the authors need to provide all the actual photos they analyzed, but I assume there is a spreadsheet of data that was analyzed and which could be made available?

Minor comments:

Why is there a period in the title?

L28: How do you know gigging activity is high, if the first part of the sentence establishes that this activity is not accounted for?

L72: Why quotes on push fans? Does the term mean something different without quotes?

L78: Can you please cite the claim that gig charters perceive a healthy flounder population?

L100: I'm not against the Froeschke et al. citation, but I wonder if it should be caveated that the data used in that paper ended in 2008—nearly 15 years ago. And while I don't necessarily question that study, the flounder declines of the last ~5 years do appear to be related to recruitment. I think my larger point here is to consider that fact that Texas (I think) is dealing with possibly two flounder declines: 1) a chronic adult decline, and 2) a recent and acute recruitment decline. I mention this because they have the possibility to be quite different, ranging from their mechanisms to their population-level effects.

L165–66: Can you please provide more details about the internet search (in theory, so that the methods are reproducible)? For example, were all the terms include in a search? Only one term at a time? Combinations of terms (if so, which combinations and why?) What dates were the searches performed (this is all routine methods for internet searches.) Also, can you please provide specifics on fishing forms, outdoor classified boards, etc. I could imagine a table of URLs as a supplement. I recognize this is a bit detailed, but if this is the primary means of data generation, I think it should be iron-clad in terms of what was done so readers know where exactly this data came from and how they could reproduce it. Right now a reader could not replicate your methods.

L169: How were these three subset? Why only three? How many in total were there? (You mention this was based on extensive photos, but then please quantify extensive.)

L175-76: Just a few lines above you state "...charters operate....high effort geographic area..." Yet here you assume the charters to be representative of average guide-gigging. This seems conflicted and likely to overestimate gigging catch and effort because you have biased the sample to the highest effort areas and the guides that post the most (based on your description). [See major comment above.]

L183: How did you check for duplicate photos? For example, it seems realistic that on a poor night of gigging, and operating service might re-post a photo from a more productive night as there is a financial incentive not to post the actual catch if it is low.

L196: This seems like a safe assumption, but one you could also check. For example, look back at weather data for storms, precipitation, and wind events that would have precluded gigging. If no gigging photos were posted on those days, your assumption is strengthened. If guides posted gigging photos on those days, that is a problem and the assumption does not hold. I'm not sure what you would do if guides are posting trip photos on days it would have been impossible to fish.

L197: What is the basis for the assumption that each guide posted photos of each trip? I don't think this is unreasonable, but would be nice to pin that assumption on something.

L254 and elsewhere: Why standard error and not standard deviation? I'm not suggesting which is right or wrong, but SD would be easier to interpret for some of the estimates you report.

L269-72: In relation to previous comments, I am concerned that the gigging estimates are biased, and therefore this multiplication factor would be applying the highest catch estimates across all gigging operations, which are likely to operate at very different levels. [See major comment above.]

L329-331: What is meant by high level of consistency? My first impression of these small standard errors is that they are smaller because the sample size for these months is larger, and with the same distribution of data (and variance), SE will decrease with sample size. I'm sure the authors know this, but perhaps my hang up is not knowing what "consistency" means here or how that translates to the statistical evidence.

L379-80: Are the authors suggesting that the entirety of the flounder decline is due to missing nighttime gigging catch? While I agree that the authors make a compelling case that gig data is missing from this fishery, I think it is an overreach to cite it as the sole factor? Furthermore, flounder have been declining throughout their range, including many places where gigging is not expected to be taking place or at least playing the role it is in Texas.

I have no real issues with the Discussion, because I think it appropriately interprets the current results. However, based on my major comment above, I think the methods and results need revision to account for potential biases in harvest (over)estimates. Revisiting the methods and results to account for bias may well change the Discussion, and so I will withhold any major comments on the discussion.

Just a few observations on the figures: Figure 1 is not colorblind-friendly. Figures 2 and 3 (and probably 4) would be easier to interpret as a box plot or something that better captures the distributional nature of the data (see Newman and Scholl 2012). For Figure 4, I would also suggest changing from a bar plot to box plot, but minimally bars are easier to interpret when not stacked (rather, clustered so they all originate at y = 0). Stacked bars do not have common reference locations, making comparison difficult. Also, what does the asterisk represent? I see a note in the Figure caption, but I'm still not 100% sure. (Also, the symbols do not match.)

Newman, G.E. and Scholl, B.J., 2012. Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 19(4), pp.601-607.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript uses social media to inform critical data gaps in the management and regulation of the southern flounder fishery in Texas. The methodology employed in this manuscript is a novel (especially for fisheries applications) and creative solution to a complex problem. Despite several acknowledged caveats, the manuscript makes a strong case for the nighttime guided gigging having an appreciable impact on the sustainability of the fishery. At a minimum, the results presented in the manuscript highlight the need for expanded collection and inclusion of the nighttime gigging harvest in management practices. The manuscript is well written, conceptually solid, and not only likely to impact the management of Texas’ southern flounder fishery but also has the potential to influence the management of wildlife and fisheries elsewhere. I recommend this manuscript for publication with minor revisions.

Major concern:

The authors detail several potential biases in their methodology and ultimately conclude that their results underestimate the effort and harvest. While I agree with their conclusions as it pertains to these specific biases, I am concerned that their method for selecting the representative guide operations has introduced an overlooked bias. The three guide operations that serve as the basis for calculating multiple metrics were selected because each had an extensive social media presence (LINE XXXX). We know that social media influences consumer behavior and brand attitudes (REF) and if recreational fishermen use the same approach for selecting a guided excursion, then the authors may have selected the three most popular guide operations. In that case, extrapolating the metrics from these operations to the other 21 (18?) guide operations could lead to an overestimation of effort and harvest. How large of an overestimation is unknowable but it warrants some text in the discussion. As a suggestion only, an interesting way to summarize the uncertainties and potential biases would be to include a small table that outlines the risks to interpretation of the data and management actions associated with each bias.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dylan M. Kiene

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Michael Lowe

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

19 Apr 2022

Please refer to response to Editor and reviewers document: (Response to Reviewers.docx).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 May 2022

Social media shines light on the “hidden” impact of nighttime guided-gigging charters on Texas’ Southern Flounder fishery: A stab in the dark

PONE-D-21-39734R1

Dear Dr. Hall,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Charles William Martin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have done a nice job with the revision and taking reviewer comments into account.

Reviewers' comments:

25 May 2022

PONE-D-21-39734R1

Social media shines light on the “hidden” impact of nighttime guided-gigging charters on Texas’ Southern Flounder fishery: A stab in the dark

Dear Dr. Hall:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Charles William Martin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE