Just this week a summary report of the most recent Summer Flounder Stock Assessment Workshop was released. It’s a difficult read for a civilian but it looks as if the only real change is an increase in the natural mortality estimate (the number of fish that die from natural causes). It follows to reason that this drives a significant drop in the long term number of fish that could be achieved under a management plan. Still with me? Yeah, it’s boring and sometimes confusing stuff, but important nonetheless.
So, if you’ve been following the summer flounder issue at all, you know that by law the fluke population has to reach a certain level (a scientifically determined rebuilding goal) by the year 2013. Reaching this goal was requiring some very significant cuts in landings and the commercial and recreational fishing industries weren’t very happy about that.
So now, with the natural mortality estimate significantly increased, the rebuilding goal is significantly reduced, thus, according to the new model we are closer to the rebuilding goal than we initially thought. The Jersey fishing press is screaming victory, saying they were right all along, but my interpretation is there isn’t much for those folks to celebrate about, and really they weren’t right at all. I’ll get to that in a second.
A long time industry supporter told the Asbury Park Press “We’ve been fishing under this system for all this time, and they suddenly sat down and used different numbers, What a hoax!” Well, let’s be honest here. It’s likely that the natural mortality number wouldn’t have changed if those industry reps didn’t secure one of their scientists a seat at the stock assessment table.
There are already a good number of folks who believe that the increase in the natural mortality variable was political. I spoke to one scientist today who said that natural mortality estimate is pretty darn high on the scale, and went on to describe it as “absurd”. I’m not sure I agree with such strong words, especially in light of all the supporting documentation that the higher mortality rate is indeed plausible. But, there has been a ton of political pressure on managers to increase harvest, so I can understand this view. According to insiders, NOAA wasn’t happy about the natural mortality tweak nor was it wholeheartedly endorsed by the review committee, but they didn’t think it was inappropriate, and saw no reason to reject the option. But indeed I have to say that it appears politics is playing a role in a system that is supposed to rely on un-bias science. With all this being said however, the option did pass a peer review. If NOAA Fisheries says this is the best available science, then we need to follow it, and I’ll wholeheartedly support it.
What is paramount in all of this is the integrity of the peer-review process. I spent the last couple of years supporting the prior rebuilding target of 197-million-pounds, and the resultant management measures, because they reflected the best available science, as represented by a peer-reviewed stock assessment. A faction of the recreational fishing industry and the commercial fishing industry attacked the science as “bad” without offering anything else in its place, and I opposed that approach because I believed it was wrong. Now, we’re looking at a significantly lowered target and folks are cheering, because they feel that their attack on the prior target of 197 million pounds was vindicated. Some folks on the other side of the spectrum are upset, because they feel that the 197 million pound target was improperly undercut. Both are overlooking the fact that the essential process remains the same, and that both the prior 197 million pound and the present 131 million pound targets reflect the best available science at the time the calculations were made.
We always have to remember that, if researchers are doing their jobs, every year brings additional data and additional knowledge. In 2011, we’ll have even more information, and can probably expect additional tuning of the reference points. Undoubtedly that’s a good thing, and it shows that indeed the system does work and that it is already sufficiently “flexible.” Thus, there is absolutely no need for a “Flexibility” Amendment to fisheries management law currently being pushed by some. Such an amendment is shortsighted and would essentially bring us back to the pre-1996 days of perpetual overfishing.
Now, back to the victory celebration columns. As mentioned, if natural mortality has been underestimated and the fishery is less productive than previously thought, that will lower the rebuilding goal. The bottom line is that, while the rebuilding target is lower, harvest is ultimately also lower than it would be under the old rules.
In other words, if the fishery is eventually declared fully rebuilt with the lower goal, we won’t see much looser regulations than what we have now, where as if the stock had been rebuilt to what scientists had said it could be rebuilt to under the old system, anglers could have enjoyed far more liberal size and bag limits had the initial rebuilding goal been met. Of course this begs the question, could that prior goal have been achieved if we had followed the plan and didn’t overfish every year. Guess we’ll never know.