Last Friday, NOAA conducted a Fishermen’s Northeast Groundfish Science Forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, allowing fishermen and members of the public to interact with NOAA officials on groundfish science.
The following is a summary of the afternoon session. A summary of the morning session can be found here. Throughout the summary below are links to audio highlights of the day's meeting.
Q and A Session
A question from Jim Kendall, a New Bedford seafood consultant, concerned the appropriateness of the sample areas for yellowtail flounder. Kendall claimed that the survey, although random, was not taking place in the areas where yellowtail are actually found, and was not getting a representative sample of the population. “It’s much like taking a national population survey–going to Dakota, going to Minnesota, Wisconsin, all those states,” he said. “But you can’t take those states and ignore the rest, where your heavy populations are–New York, California, Florida.”
The response was that the yellowtail survey was conducted in the same way as previous surveys, and that, over time, the results of the survey smooth out, regardless of which areas are surveyed in any given year.
Vito Giacalone of the Northeast Seafood Coalition started a discussion on concerns he had about the randomized way the surveys are conducted, and the selection process for what areas are chosen for the samples. He claimed the spatial distribution is too unpredictable and that even using historic data to find the correct areas to trawl in could be incorrect and flawed.
NOAA’s response highlighted the problems inherent in conducting a multispecies survey, and contrasted it with a single-species survey like scallops. They noted the difficulty of distributing sample areas, and accounting for differences among the species sampled.
Assessment methods, models & results
• Paul Rago, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)/Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Population Dynamics Branch
• Mark Gibson, Rhode Island Department of Fish and Game Deputy Chief (RI DF&G)
• David Goethel, owner-operator F/V Ellen Diane, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC)
• John Annala, Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), Chief Scientific Officer
Dr. Bill Karp introduced the panel on assessment methods, models & results.
Paul Rago of the Population Dynamics Branch of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, began the panel discussion with an explanation of stock assessments and the different factors that go into creating the final product. He discussed the different techniques of stock assessments and their role as an integration of the measures of trend and scale based on the basic population model that is dependent on a inputs and outputs of total biomass. He addressed that although we have a historical record, and data record, condition in the environment and within a species change, and this is where many of the issues the assessments are facing now take root.
Mark Gibson, the Rhode Island DF&G Deputy Chief, presented a sample stock assessment of Winter Flounder and discussed the role of environmental conditions and local stock assessments in
science. He explained how to assess winter flounder on a smaller scale with the Local Rhode Island stock assessment. Gibson gave an overview of the winter flounder assessment and outlined how changes in natural mortality due to climate change were now having to be factored into the model. He also noted that changes in mortality rate, environment, and the changing of the assessment models all need to be evaluated.
David Goethel, of the NEFMC and the owner-operator of Ellen Diane, spoke on the issues and concerns of fishermen with the current stock assessment science. He acknowledged his belief that the assessment process generally works, but that the assessments had been “oversold,” with fisheries law and management overvaluing the estimates.
“It’s hard to manage on an estimate,” Goethel said, noting that the law “requires us to manage to that estimate like it’s a point, and that’s a real problem.”
He addressed several areas of concern including:
– An over-reliance on the trawl survey, with survey gear not sampling the correct areas
– Calibration in transition between the survey vessels was flawed and inaccurate
– The need for a flatfish survey – cannot survey skates and flatfish with a rockhopper
– An over-reliance on mathematical modeling in stock assessments
– Domed vs. flat-topped selectivity
– Stock boundaries for cod
During a conversation about the current environmental conditions of the ocean waters and how they are being measured, Jim Odlin, fisherman and member of the New England Fisheries Management Council, points out that, “you have to have reference points for the regime you have, not for the regime you’d like to have.” In his comment he describes the current methods for determining the kind of regime that exists, especially in terms of environmental conditions. These include: attaching equipment to lobster traps, temperature depth probes on research vessels, and the use of historical data. He emphasizes that historical data is especially important for determining the current regime, using the example of the 1950s, with a similar warm water regime. During this time period, with no closed areas or management regulations and a smaller mesh size was used for fishing, conditions were better for catching more fish, yet the fish seemed nonexistent, Odlin explained. “The fish did their thing regardless of fisheries management,” he stated, “We can attempt to rebuild until hell freezes over, but its not going to happen.”
Dr. Karp opened discussion with a question posed by a webinar participant about collaborative research, and how best to incorporate the knowledge from fishermen into the stock assessment process. The panel responded by noting that, through peer review, science is a self-correcting process. They noted that the industry has information to bring into the process, but if it is to be included in the assessment it needs to be scrutinized in a scientific way in order to maintain confidence in that data.
Paul Rago, responded that he never uses the word anecdotal when referring to fishermen’s information, because it is incorrect statement and a good way to empty a room of fishermen. He also spoke that “if you want to see criticism come to a stock assessment meeting and see how we are on ourselves.” Mr. Rago explains that the one current concrete way in which the ideas from fishermen can be incorporated into the assessment process is the data recorded in vessel trip reports. When data is entered into these forms, its is more organized than delivering separate pieces of information to the scientists that they may not know what to do with.
On the panel, David Goethel described why fishermen are often smug about stock assessment results and often offer “I told you so” comments. He explained that the fishermen are not offered a real role in the scientific process, and that the current involvement with working groups is not enough. Goethel emphasizes the need for fishermen to get involved in the science process in a formal way, not just an informal way. He asserted that fishermen need to be included as peer reviewers and independent experts, and most of all: need to be paid. Fishermen cannot afford to take weeks off of the water to attend meetings, someone has to pay for it. He concluded that fishermen aren't going to trust the stock assessment process until they can have a more involved role.
In the closing comments, Jim Kendall complemented Karp on his successful cooperative programs in Alaska and expressed the hope he could use that experience to produce quality cooperative programs in New England.