Some Comments About Fisheries Management

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association June 2006 Newsletter)

For years I have been saying there are only three things needed to improve the science of fisheries management.  They are DATA, DATA and DATA.  We need to add to that another factor and that is some common sense.  The first criterion of any scientific measurement is:  “Does it make sense?”  If it is outside what one would expect then you need:  You guessed it!  More DATA.

            The current fisheries management system uses the “Best Available Science” in making its decisions.  Unfortunately, the best available science is not very good in many cases. 

The reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Act calls for more reliance on scientific data.  The big question I have is how is that going to be accomplished? 

There are two components of the data needed.  The total biomass of fish that are available to be caught and the total fish caught.  The data on the commercial side is pretty good at determining the total fish caught since there are lots of records that can be reviewed.  The recreational side relies on the MRFSS survey, which even by NMFS admission is not reliable.

The National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed the Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods.  They came to the same conclusion-that the MRFSS survey needs a major overhaul of the design, implementation and analysis of data from the MRFSS program.  The current approach has serious flaws in design, implementation and uses inadequate analysis methods that need to be addressed immediately.  They conclude that users’ concerns about the use of the MRFSS in fishery management are justified.

Not surprisingly they recommend additional staff and more funding.  They state that a registry or license requirement for all saltwater anglers is a major impediment to the development of a reliable and accurate survey program.  They do recognize that even in states that currently have a saltwater license the information is incomplete because there are too many exemptions based on age, residence, boat and pier licenses and others.  They, therefore, recommend a national registration of all saltwater anglers or state license programs that would allow no exemptions. 

We all know how well the Tuna Permit has worked to provide data.  It hasn’t!

And how well has the Charter and Party boat log books of fish landed, caught and released worked?   They have been required for over 10 years and the information has been sent to NMFS in Woods Hole where it has gathered dust.

What does the National Academy of Sciences say as one of their major recommendations?  “Charter, party and other for-hire recreational fishing operations should be required to maintain logbooks of fish landed and kept as well as fish caught and released.  Providing the information should be mandatory for continued operation in this sector, and all the information should be verifiable and made available to the survey program in a timely manner.” 

Talk about not understanding the concept!!!  Where has the information that has already been collected been going?  This certainly makes you wonder how they came up with some of their recommendations, doesn’t it?

The other half of the information that is used by fisheries managers is the total biomass of a given species.  Let’s look at a few examples.  First, according to the biomass data, dogfish are an endangered species.  I think this is where that common sense that I mentioned comes into play.  The trawl survey shows without a doubt that there are very few dogfish.  So let’s not consider the information from every other source because it is not scientific.  How many times have boat anglers been inundated with dogfish as they try to fish a wreck for blackfish or sea bass or how many dogfish have you caught while drifting for fluke?  Why doesn’t that information get factored into the total biomass calculation?

Next is my personal favorite, summer flounder.  According to NMFS the total biomass of summer flounder is 120,000,000 pounds.  Now, follow this calculation, it’s not that hard, but the fisheries managers didn’t get it.  Let’s use a figure of 20 discards to each keeper, which certainly is not that unreasonable, based on 2005 catch reports.  Now, assume an average of 2 pounds for each keeper fish and 1 pound for each fish released.  The recreational quota was 12 million pounds or 6 million fish.  So at 20 to 1 recreational anglers released 120,000,000 pounds of summer flounder.   Therefore, recreation anglers caught and released the entire estimated biomass of summer flounder in the ocean.  Does that make sense to anyone?  Did common sense enter into the equation of the “Best Available Science”? 

When the Magnuson Stevens Act is reauthorized we can certainly agree that additional funding is needed for science, and JCAA will be actively working to ensure that the funds go into improving the “Best Available Science.”

.

[News Contents] [Top]