Quote:
Originally Posted by reason162
Still waiting on someone - anyone - to explain who is manipulating the fisheries science data and why.
|
Decisions are made, or are supposed to be made, based heavily on data provided by science. I think we can all agree on that. If the data is wrong, decisions are being based on bad data. Even if the data is directionally correct, I believe fisheries management makes decisions all too often on the results and agenda they want as opposed to what the data is suggesting. Call it manipulation, bad data, lack of accountability, it doesn't matter as they all lead to decisions not in the benefit of stocks. Government routinely manipulates data to paint the picture they want, why would anyone believe the Department of Commerce and NMFS are any different with the amount of money involved in this industry.
But you ask for examples of manipulation, that depends on your definition, but I'll provide examples of bad or questionable data having significant impact on fisheries and let each decide if it's willful manipulation, incompetence or just the results of the complexities involved managing the oceans resources. We each have to let our conscience be our guide.
I was told by someone extensively involved in the Summer Flounder management process years ago
science has absolutely no clue what recruitment numbers are yet they're an integral part of the determination of stock size. Bears the questions are they manipulated or just wrong.
I asked the question a dozen times, including to Kiley Dancy, why weight values used for North Carolina and all other commercial states are significantly lower than those assigned to recreational catch. Her answer was she wasn't even aware they were. We all harvest from the same biomass. In most cases recreational has assigned age class weight values 40% - 60% greater than commercial. Those statistics come from science and make no sense whatsoever. Example, 2-3 year old fish caught recreationally have a weight factor assigned which is greater by 45% - 50% and 4 year old age class fish that disparity increases to almost 60% higher weight values. Those three age classes make up almost 75% of landings. North Carolina, which accounts for 50% of commercial landings from our waters, has it's own tables with the lowest catch weight assignments to age classes. Why since we're all fishing the same biomass. What that means in layman's terms is a significant amount of landings is transferred to commercial from recreational simply by assigning different weight values to similar age class fish as quotas, landings and catch statistics are all weight based. Because of this anomaly, commercial probably gets closer to a 75% - 80% share of total annual landings as their landing values are for no explainable reason valued at significantly lesser weights than recreational. Manipulation, incompetence or just bad data?
Science has no idea what impact commercial harvest during the spawn is having on recruitment, they've maintained that position for over a decade. Why? If they don't know or even conducted a study attempting to answer that question, how can you manage the stock? Mark Terceiro, lead scientists at NOAA fisheries, has repeatedly maintained recruitment has been inexplicably in a sharp decline for over a decade. Shouldn't the fishery be closed during the spawn based on that scientific data alone if we in fact don't know the consequences of netting during the spawn which is one of the most impactful attributes of any sustainable fishery. Or is the data so questionable, NMFS ignores it in their policy decisions?
In an earlier stock assessment, based on onboard federal observers (their own employees), commercial dead discard ran as high as 145% of landings relative to significantly lower numbers reported by commercial operators on the vessel trip reports. Lower numbers used by science to determine annual landings for those years averaged 30% and were used instead of empirical data from eyewitness accounts of federal onboard observers. The chart was removed from all subsequent stock assessment as it clearly showed a trend NMFS didn't want shown. Manipulation of the data, certainly appears to be. By whom is the question.
MRIP, no one can argue, is anything but a complete failure. Started in 2006 it's been modified twice and is still a complete guess used
ONLY against the recreational sector. Almost 20 years of effort and worthless data. Manipulation, incompetency or in this case maybe a combination of both.
The Chesapeake disaster, science endorsed the release decades ago of blue catfish in the system failing to understand their ability to monopolize the bay. But it added hundreds of millions in economic benefit. We now are living the consequences. Manipulation, bad science or politicians ignoring scientific findings. We'll never know for sure but it doesn't change the damage that's been done.
Bunker stocks biomass overstated by 50% and reproductive capacity overstated by the same. Those statistics came from science. Again manipulation of the data to support a predetermined result or incompetence. Either way, we're living the damage done for decisions based on scientific data which was completely misrepresentative of the stock.
I agree with you about your comments regarding ASMFC and the entire process being rotten to the core (although for different reasons than you commented on), but like Dave I completely disagree that moving this entire process to the federal level and their science which has repeatedly proven to be inaccurate would change anything other than make matters worse. The problem starts at the federal level already. And while pubic comments seem to always fall on deaf ears, I believe the public deserves the right to voice their opinions when it comes to a public resource which has been essentially stolen from them by our own federal government.
Lastly, you've been the most vocal on this site about the impact of climate change and spatial displacement of fisheries being forced to move north yet you argue that trawl studies which absolutely impact the assessment of stock biomass should continue being conducted in the same areas they have been for years. Your argument would suggest for summer flounder NOAA should conduct their trawls off of Virginia and North Carolina in what was once know as the "Southern Chesapeake stock" which was wiped out single handedly years ago by North Carolina and Virginia commercials. Stock assessments and trawl studies should be conducted in areas where the results will be most representative of the stock's current population, not in areas where the stock used to be in past years.
Like I said you're obviously an intelligent person, great fisherman but I don't understand your positions or blind faith can do no wrong belief in fisheries management, science, Peer Review and the federal government. I'm not a blind faith guy and never will be. I'm sure you disagree with my views as much as I do with yours but you asked for examples so I provided just a few.
