There are some predictable patterns in life. When you go to a restaurant, at the end of dinner the bill comes. And when you attend a fisheries management council meeting that is dealing with a crisis, there is usually a bad stock assessment.
by Richard Canastra
December 20, 2012 — Richard Canastra is co-owner of the seafood display auction in New Bedford.
I nearly always attend New England Fishery Management Council meetings in person, but last month, I was unable to attend the meeting in Newport, and instead listened to the proceedings online. I found that listening, and not physically being there, gives you a different perspective on a meeting. You hear more intently. There are fewer distractions. Examples seem clearer. Patterns emerge.
There are some predictable patterns in life. When there is an accident, at the end of the traffic jam you find a police officer. When you go to a restaurant, at the end of dinner the bill comes. And when you attend a fisheries management council meeting that is dealing with a crisis, there is usually a bad stock assessment.
Bad stock assessments have become as predictable as the sunrise.
In Newport, a long and difficult discussion took place to determine how next year's miniscule limit of yellowtail flounder would be divided between the scallop fleet and the groundfish fleet. Eventually a decision was made. But wait! It turns out there is another fishery – whiting – asking for a share of the allegedly non-existent yellow tail flounder.
When there is good science, the industry will agree to a cut. Just a week ago, NOAA closed an area to scalloping with the support of the industry. The reason is because for over a decade, a survey conducted under the direction of Dr. Kevin Stokesbury at the UMass School for Marine Science and Technology has been performed in cooperation with fishermen using actual scallop vessels. Fishermen believe those results. In the yellowtail survey, fishermen don't even believe government scientists are using the right equipment to catch bottom-dwelling flat fish.
Dr. Bill Karp, the newly installed chief of NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center, has promised greater cooperation between industry and government scientists. Sam Rauch, the head of the National Marine Fishery Service, has also promised greater cooperative research. Unfortunately, it hasn't started yet, and won't be done by 2013.
There has not been a new benchmark assessment since 2005. Instead, we get update after update of a model that everyone knows is flawed. The science committee's report on its attempt to determine an overfishing limit is full of statements like these: "a retrospective pattern, which was present in the previous "¦ assessment, became stronger in the current assessment, resulting in less confidence;" the committee "was not comfortable with the assessment outcomes"; "there should be no directed fishery "¦ in light of the high uncertainty."
It's been seven years since the last benchmark assessment was done on yellowtail. But whenever a new survey is requested, NOAA claims to have neither the staff, the time, nor the money. But they always find the time and funding to tweak, twist and fiddle with a model that produces worthless results time after time.
Landings data from the New Bedford and Gloucester auctions has shown that during the current fishing season, even with fishermen attempting to avoid yellowtail, vessels are landing 10,000-pound trips. In November alone, 85,429 pounds of yellowtail was landed. That is 30 percent of the limit forecast for 2013. If this pattern continues into the new fishing year the fleet will hit its limit in just over three months.
The current assessment is worthless. Fishermen don't believe it. Scientists have no confidence in it. A new benchmark is needed, and data needs to be collected in cooperation with fishermen. There is no time to waste. When the council meets today, it must recognize the worthlessness of the assessment, and make bold decisions that will preserve both the fishermen and the fishery.