2009 Scup Assessment

[shresearchdude]

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0918/

[Foul Hook]

I read the words "not over-fished and over-fishing is not occurring" So lets hope they don't change this!

[CaptTB]

Originally Posted by Foul Hook

I read the words "not over-fished and over-fishing is not occurring" So lets hope they don't change this!

As is the case with Black Sea Bass, the SSC took a stock that is ABOVE the rebuilding target yet chose to ignore nearly ALL the positive aspects of the Stock Assessment and ONLY look at the cautionary statements (which are in EVERY Assessment ever done) and set a quota level that is a FRACTION of what it should be according to the "best available" science.

In the case of Scup it is even more of an insult than with Sea Bass when looking at raw numbers.

Scup are at nearly TWICE the rebuilding target (202 million pounds target BM vs. around 400 million pounds total biomass) yet gave only a 10% increase over the quota from 2009, which was held at the same level as 2008, which was based on a stock that was at that time NOT CONSIDERED TO BE REBUILT let alone TWICE the rebuilt target.

THAT my friends is what happens when LOGICAL decisions based on ALL ASPECTS of a fishery, as the system was originally designed, are put in the hands of ONLY the scientists without the benefit of common sense, FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE of the fishery and REAL WORLD knowledge COMBINED with the invaluable scientific expertise the SSC has.

With ALL components working you get something that reflects not only reality, but practicality.

With only ONE part of the system controlling and dictating to the other parts, you get NONSENSICAL actions that defy logic.

A quota that is STILL not even as large as a rebuilt stock would produce for a stock that is TWICE THE SIZE of a "rebuilt" one in the case of scup, and a quota that is THE SAME SIZE as one for a stock that is OVERFISHED, with OVERFISHING occurring and NOT REBUILT when in reality the stock is NOT overfished, IS re-built and with LESS THAN the quota for such a state would NOT be experiencing overfishing.

This is NOT a knock on scientists (as I said, their scientific knowledge is invaluable)

This IS a knock on the LAW that dictates what those scientists, managers, fishermen, etc. can and cannot do.

Think about it. You have a quota for a fishery that is not over fished, would not be experiencing overfishing if you held 15-20% of the quota in reserve, is 103% of it's rebuilt level, set at a level the same as when that same stock was overfished and was not rebuilt.

You have another quota for a different fishery set at the same level as if the fishery was not rebuilt yet. But, in reality the stock is not only rebuilt and not experiencing overfishing but is in fact TWICE the size of a "rebuilt" one.

Does this make sense to anyone reading this?

There is caution, there is precautionary, then there is being cautious to a FAULT. There is...

Of forget it, I'm tired of trying to explain the assinine situation we are in and how we got here. We suffered insulting rejection after insulting rejection over the years of our data, our knowledge, our experience and our assertions, only to be proven RIGHT time and again.

Now that we have been told that our claims as related to Fluke, Sea Bass, Porgies, MRFSS were CORRECT and the ASSumptions of the past were WRONG, after being forced to take reduction after reduction with the promise of "you'll reap the rewards in the end," we got F*C3D.

Plain and simple.

[Foul Hook]

Capt. Your assessment of these facts is amazing! I truly compliment that! I personally feel that the system is so flawed I feel like I"m pissing up a rope when it comes thinking this thing could ever get fixed. For me it is a recreational thing but for people like yourself You are all fighting for your lives. God Bless!