Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski
Bingo and here in lies part of the problem... NFMS knows MRIP is flawed but they fall back on "it's the best available science". It's impractical to think they can measure it like they do commercials and weigh everyone's catch. So you do some sampling with surveys, you apply some assumptions, some math and you have an estimate... Is the estimate correct, who knows but it's all you have...
There are a few other problems worth mentioning here that effect our regs:
- Stock assessments... After all the landing information is gathered, which we know is flawed, every now and then you need to get an estimate of the stocks. Again, you do some sample surveys, in this case some trawls. You then count the fish, their sizes, apply some assumptions and math to it. This past assessment indicated there was plenty of Fluke but a shortage of younger Fluke which indicates the future may not be that bright and you slam the breaks on and proceed with caution.
- Better Science and the reluctance of the NMFS to accept it.. SSFFF has been fighting to include the sex model studies for years now as well as the actual fishing research they funded in cooperation with Rutgers on charter boats. Under the heading of it's not a good idea unless it's it their idea, they go a bit defensive about it but they seem to be coming around which is good.
You also can't ignore the political side of things
- You need to change the laws under which fisheries are managed and the Modern Fishing Act is s step in the right direction
- There is constant pressure from Environment organizations which would rather us not fish at all
Lastly, a huge organization like NOAA with an annual budget of $5.6 billion with $921 million going to the NFMS, you naturally want to protect it and you have to justify your existence. If you're paying them to manage the fisheries, what do you think they're going to do?? They are going to over manage it and be reluctant to invite outsiders into their sandbox. We outsiders typically only get to comment once they've decided what the quotas are and what we want our season, sizes and bag limits to be to achieve their predetermined quotas.
Let me be careful to say this is not a dig on the people in the NFMS, it's a dig on the system they are forced to work within.
|
Rutgers study was well thought out and took years to conduct. Tremendous amount of actual at sea data was collected and analyzed, fact based data. One of the few aspects of this fishery with data not being questioned. And what happens, it's pushed aside by NMFS due to technical reasons in a process where everyone is crying for accuracy and arguably the study contains the most important and accurate data needed to reverse the decline in recruitment statistics NMFS's own data underscores. There's not a fishery in the world that can rebuild or sustain itself with a 90% reduction in relative recruitment strength of the biomass. Instead NMFS continues the use of data highly based on assumptions to make the same regulatory decisions which have continuously failed the fishery for the last twenty or more years. The fishery is not "Steep" so Mr. Witek if your reading this please don't embarrass yourself suggesting it is. NMFS data says it's not. And if you find the term "Relative Recruitment Strength" offensive or too hard to understand, don't give it more thought as some people have spin doctored the truth so long common sense explanations and terms become perplexing and almost impossible to understand. Don't want you hurting yourself trying to grasp basic relational trend analysis.
Washington has the ability to change anything if it benefits their agenda. NFMS is made up of the people who work there and as such you can argue the system they work within was created by them with the exception of MSA imposed impacts. Not using Rutgers Study in the latest Peer Review has
NOTHING to do with MSA and is a mistake based on what we know. Secretary of Commerce Ross has all the power and resources available to change the direction of NMFS, the processes used and the regulatory philosophies followed and once again it appears we're going to be faced with the same failed options we've been faced with since the early 2000's.
When Washington wants something, they can move at the speed of light. When they don't, moving at a snails pace would appear fast compared to the pace they operate at. Just a fact of life we're forced to live with every day. Unfortunately this fishery and many others represent the later and the frustration is not knowing how to change it. I know what people will say
BUT we've been saying the same things for a very long time with no substantive changes..........very frustrating considering what's at stake here.
