 |
 |
|
|
||
MRFS Survey Under Reviewby Tom Siciliano (from Jersey Coast Anglers Association November 2005 Newsletter) The National Academies of Science is conducting a Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods. The Academy is made up of the nation’s top scientists, engineers and other experts who volunteer their time without pay to study specific areas of concern. The National Academies have a proven track record in providing expert, independent, advice – taking matters out of the political arena to examine them objectively. They have been holding meetings up and down the coast to learn about the current methods. The Statement of Task that the Academy has is: This study will critically review the types of survey methods used to estimate catch per unit effort and effort in recreational fisheries, including state/federal cooperative programs. The committee will examine representative survey types. The study will consider the match or mismatch between options for collecting recreational fisheries data and alternative approaches for managing recreational fisheries. They held a meeting from October 22-24 in New York City that Tom Fote and I attended. Tom Fote, in fact, was one of the speakers and I was able to provide pubic comment. Some of the other speakers were Maury Osborn who is in charge of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program and Daniel Furlong of the Mid-Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council. Ms. Osborn gave her perspective on how great a job the MRFS survey does. She did admit that it would benefit from a larger sample size but funding was a problem. To the layman she sounded very convincing. The statistical aspects are certainly correct and statistics can be a powerful tool if the information going into the model is accurate. Unfortunately, the truth is that the basic premises are flawed. There are just too many variables that are not considered. A variable as easy to factor in, as the weather, is not done. Each day in each location is a separate entity and cannot be extrapolated to cover the whole coast. When fishermen see data that shows that huge numbers of fluke were caught when the wind was howling and even the largest Party boats were tied to the dock, they lose any confidence they might have had in the survey numbers. The MRFS survey is simply not credible.Dan Furlong went on to say that Fisheries Management is not Rocket Science; it is much more difficult than that. I can agree with that but not for the same reasons that Dan thinks. To put it simply, there is insufficient and flawed data and too much politics in the system. Hopefully, this effort by the National Academy will remedy part of the problem. Tom Fote pointed out some of the flaws in the current MRFS system such as not using the Party and Charter boat log books which contain a wealth of information going back many years. Even a cursory look at this data would provide many times more information than the current system. The good thing is there is recognition that the current system is broke and that something must be done to fix it. We have a golden opportunity to assist the National Academy to identify the flaws in the current system. With that knowledge hopefully they will be able to give a recommendation that will vastly improve the data. Until public confidence in the data is achieved, fishermen, both recreational and commercial, will continue to be frustrated.
|