While
biological data, such as stock assessments, receive some criticism, most
anglers’ rancor is reserved for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS)
estimates of the recreational catch.
Anglers,
and the organizations that represent them, typically argue that recreational
catch is overestimated, and that more accurate data would show that further
regulation isn’t needed. However, sometimes anglers try to increase their share
of the recreational/commercial allocation; then, they do an about-face, and claim that recreational harvest estimates understated landings,
but only during the years used to calculate the recreational/commercial split.
Regardless
of what they are trying to prove, opponents of recreational regulation have,
for a very long time, routinely claimed that recreational harvest data was “flawed”, “obsolete“, “fatally flawed” and “unreliable.”
For
many years, such criticisms may have been justified.
In
2006, the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics
Survey (MRFSS), and found that “the current methods used in the
MRFSS for sampling the universe of anglers and for determining their catch and
effort is inadequate.” It recommended that “The MRFSS…should be completely
redesigned to improve its effectiveness and appropriateness of sampling and
estimation procedures, its applicability to various kinds of management
decisions, and its usefulness for social and economic analysis.”
NMFS
took that recommendation to heart, and embarked on a multi-year effort to
improve its recreational catch estimates. The result was the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), which was
designed to address MRFSS’ shortcomings.
In
early 2016, NMFS requested that NAS review MRIP, to determine whether it had
successfully overcome MRFSS’ problems. On January 10, 2017, NAS released a
report of its findings.
A summary of those findings declares, “Work to
redesign the National Marine Fisheries Service’s recreational fishery survey
program (now referred to as the Marine Recreational Information Program) has
yielded impressive progress over the past decade in providing more reliable
data to fishery managers. Major improvements to the statistical soundness of
the survey designs were achieved by reducing sources of bias and increasing
sampling efficiency as well as through increased coordination with partners and
engagement of expert consultants.”
MRIP,
like MRFSS, incorporates two different surveys, one designed to measure angling
effort, and one that intercepts anglers as they come in from fishing and
records their actual catch. The NAS report concluded, “The methodologies
associated with the current Fishing Effort Survey, including the address-based
sampling mail survey design, are major improvements from the original Coastal
Household Telephone Survey that employed random-digit-dialing to contact
anglers.”
The
report also found that “The new Access Point Angler Intercept Survey design
[used to interview anglers and record their catch] is a substantial improvement
on the MRFSS intercept survey methodologies.”
That was good news. Both legs of MRIP stood on solid ground.
The
NAS report also pointed out that MRIP still needed some tweaking, noting that
“Some additional challenges remain for the survey program, including those
associated with nonresponse, electronic data collection and communication and
outreach to some audiences.”
The
report warned that the current practice of asking anglers to remember how many
times they went fishing over the past two months to be vulnerable to lapses of
memory, and recommended that NMFS consider approaches to minimize such
problems, “such as asking people in advance to document fishing trips planned
over the next two months, to reduce concerns about angler recall.” Collecting
information through anglers’ use of electronic devices, such as smartphones,
was also recommended, as a more efficient way to gather quality data.
Nonresponse
to all or part of a survey, whether caused by anglers who refused to be
interviewed, faced language barriers, or were missed by surveyors, also remains
a problem. The report recommended that NMFS engage in “targeted annual
nonresponse studies…to control its damaging effects on data quality.”
Yet,
despite the report’s suggestions for some further improvements to MRIP, its
general tone was undoubtedly positive. It confirmed that MRIP would provide
fisheries managers with far better recreational landings data than they had
ever received before.
That
creates a problem for those who typically oppose any proposed restrictions on
recreational harvest, and justify their opposition by citing NAS’ 2006
criticisms of MRFSS, since NAS’ most recent report makes it clear that MRIP has
eliminated many of MRFSS’ former flaws.
Unfortunately,
the early indications are that such opponents of data-based regulations will
merely sidestep NAS’ positive comments, and seek new ways to discredit the
data.
Shortly
after the NAS report was released, the American Sportfishing Association (ASA),
which represents the recreational fishing industry, placed an editorial in Sport Fishing magazine.
Although it grudgingly admitted that “the NAS report is generally complimentary
of progress made recently under MRIP,” ASA’s primary message was that MRIP
remains “a system that is not capable of providing information…to the degree
necessary to meet current statutory requirements.”
ASA
didn’t provide any support for that conclusion. Instead, it was rooted in a
simple comment in the NAS report which said that NMFS should “Evaluate whether
the design of MRIP for the purposes of stock assessment and the determination
of stock management reference points is compatible with the needs of in-season
management of annual catch limits,” in order to address concerns previously
expressed by “analysts, managers and stakeholders.”
ASA
declared that “A full evaluation of this issue would almost certainly conclude
what anglers have long known: The inability of MRIP to allow for in-season
adjustments exposes one of the core flaws of the federal
saltwater-fisheries-management system…NOAA Fisheries should look to the states
for proven recreational-fisheries-management approaches that don’t constrain
managers to attempt to enforce quotas in real time without the data to do so.”
Thus,
ASA proposed that NMFS neither set quotas for recreational fishermen nor use
MRIP data to determine whether such recreational fishermen were killing too
many fish.
That
might go over well with some anglers, who would enjoy less restrictive
regulations. At least, they would enjoy them until fish stocks collapsed.
But
over the long term, such an approach would do the fish, or the fishermen, no
good at all.
Accurate
data is a prerequisite for effective fisheries management. Guesses and
politically expedient answers are not good enough.
The
recent NAS report makes it clear that MRIP will go a long way toward putting
accurate recreational catch data into managers’ hands.
-----
This essay first appeared in "From the Waterfront", the blog of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which can be found at http://conservefish.org/blog/
No comments:
Post a Comment