SB 59 amends R.S. 56:324 to restate the existing five-percent rule for menhaden harvests in simpler, more direct language: no person taking menhaden may have more than five percent, by weight, of any species other than menhaden and “herring-like” species. The bill removes the phrase “legally taking” and drops the specific phrasing “in their possession,” and becomes effective August 1, 2026.
This is a narrow statutory redraft with practical consequences. By shifting from possession-based wording and eliminating the qualifier “legally,” the change broadens the statute’s plain-language sweep and creates immediate questions about where and how the five-percent limit must be measured, who enforces it, and how it aligns with federal rules and existing state enforcement practices.
Commercial menhaden operations, processors, and regulators will need to reconcile operational procedures with the clarified statutory standard.
At a Glance
What It Does
Rewrites R.S. 56:324 to provide that no person taking menhaden may have more than five percent by weight of any species other than menhaden and herring-like species, removing the terms “legally taking” and “in their possession.” The substance of a 5% cap remains; the language change alters who and when the rule expressly covers.
Who It Affects
Commercial menhaden harvesters (purse seiners and reduction fleets), buyers and processors who accept menhaden landings, and state enforcement agencies responsible for monitoring compliance. It also implicates fisheries managers when bycatch limits intersect with protected species rules.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a simpler, potentially broader statutory standard that could change enforcement practice and compliance costs. It heightens the importance of defining measurement point, sampling method, and coordination with federal regulations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 59 keeps the substance of Louisiana’s long-standing five-percent rule for non-menhaden species in menhaden landings but rewrites the statutory text to eliminate two qualifiers: “legally taking” and “in their possession.” On paper that is a drafting simplification, but in practice it shifts the statute from a possession-focused prohibition to a more general ban on exceeding five percent by weight of non-target species for anyone who takes menhaden.
Because the bill does not add definitions or procedural language, it leaves the operational details to existing enforcement tools: vessel boardings, port inspections, dealer scale checks, and any sampling protocols already in LDWF (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries) practice. The amendment does not create new monitoring programs or specify how to calculate the five percent (for example, whether the weight should be measured at sea prior to sorting, at landing, or at the processor).
That gap means implementation will rely on agency guidance or informal practice unless regulators adopt new rules or guidance.The statute also retains the carve-out for “herring-like species,” a term that is not defined in the amendment. That ambiguity will matter for purse-seine and reduction fisheries where small clupeid bycatch (other herrings or similar forage fish) occurs.
Finally, the amendment applies at the state-law level; it does not address fishing that occurs in federal waters under federal jurisdiction or at-sea observer and federal reporting requirements. Those federal regimes may continue to impose different limits or monitoring obligations, requiring operators to comply with both sets of rules where they overlap.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill preserves a 5% by-weight limit on species other than menhaden and herring-like species for persons taking menhaden.
It removes the words “legally taking” from the statute, so the prohibition reads as applying to any person taking menhaden rather than only to those ‘legally’ taking them.
It deletes the phrase “in their possession,” replacing it with a direct cap on having more than five percent by weight, which raises the question of the measurement point (at sea, at landing, or at processor).
SB 59 contains no new definitions, measurement procedures, permitting requirements, or penalties beyond existing fisheries enforcement authorities.
The amendment takes effect August 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Substantive rewrite of the five-percent rule
This is the core change: the statute is rewritten to state that no person taking menhaden shall have more than five percent by weight of any species other than menhaden and herring-like species. Practically, the rewrite removes two qualifiers—“legally” and “in their possession”—which were previously part of the text. Removing “in their possession” narrows the statutory reference to a percentage cap rather than a possession condition; removing “legally” broadens the textual scope. The provision itself does not add procedural language, so the way agencies calculate and enforce the five-percent cap remains governed by existing LDWF practices and any applicable federal rules.
Retention of an undefined exception for herring-like species
The amendment preserves the exception for “herring-like species” but does not define that phrase. That leaves operational actors and enforcement officers to rely on prior interpretation or agency guidance to decide whether a given incidental species falls inside the exception. For fleets that operate in mixed schools of clupeids, this uncertainty affects sorting decisions, reporting, and potential disputes at landing.
When the change applies
The bill specifies an effective date of August 1, 2026. Between enactment and that date, the existing statute (and any current administrative practices interpreting it) remains controlling. After the effective date, the clarified statutory language governs and may trigger agency updates to guidance, inspection protocols, and communications to the industry.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State fisheries managers and enforcement officers — clearer, simpler statutory wording may make it easier to cite violations in the field and to align enforcement actions with a straightforward numerical limit.
- Conservation interests and non-target species — the statutory cap keeps pressure on fleets to limit bycatch and, if enforced, could reduce incidental capture of non-herring species.
- Seafood dealers and processors that prefer cleaner (low-bycatch) loads — clearer expectations about allowable non-menhaden content reduce uncertainty at offload and may simplify acceptance decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commercial menhaden harvesters (purse seiners and reduction vessels) — they may need to change at-sea sorting, offloading, and record-keeping practices to demonstrate compliance with a weight-based cap measured at a specific point.
- Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries — the agency may face additional enforcement and inspection costs to implement a weight-based standard without accompanying new procedures or funding.
- Vessel operators and buyers who fish or accept product in both state and federal waters — they must reconcile divergent state and federal monitoring regimes, potentially increasing compliance complexity and administrative burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the value of a short, bright-line statutory limit—easier to cite and enforce—against the practical realities of measuring bycatch at sea and avoiding perverse incentives (like discarding). Simplifying statutory language improves clarity on paper but shifts the hard work to agencies and operators to develop the procedures and monitoring that make a numeric cap sensible and enforceable.
The bill is a textual tightening that preserves the existing 5% rule but does not resolve the most important practical questions: where and how to measure the five-percent ratio, who conducts and documents that measurement, and how the rule interacts with federal fisheries law. Those omissions matter because food-chain fishing is conducted at sea under dynamic conditions where incidental catch can be mixed with target species before sorting.
Without a prescribed measurement point or sampling protocol, enforcement will depend on preexisting agency practice, which may vary and invite disputes at landing.
Another implementation risk is the potential incentive to discard non-menhaden catch at sea to comply with a simple weight cap. If enforcement focuses on landings, vessels may jettison incidental species rather than retain and prove compliance, increasing waste and bycatch mortality.
Finally, the preserved but undefined term “herring-like species” creates legal uncertainty for operators and inspectors; resolving that ambiguity will require agency guidance or case-by-case enforcement, both of which create transitional compliance costs for the industry.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.