ALL SCIENCE IN BULLSHIT--UNLESS THEY LIKE THE RESULTS

There are a lot of people out there who are trying to figure out the dynamics of marine fish populations, and how best to manage them. 

Some work for the states, some for the federal government.  Some are academics, who teach and do research at colleges and universities; some are employed by organizations, on both sides of the conservation debate.  Some have even gone out on their own, providing consulting services for both private and government clients.

And all of those people have one thing in common:  They’re doing their best to develop and use the science necessary to conserve and manage our coastal fish stocks.

That being the case, they’d probably be dismayed to learn—OK, let’s face it, they already know—that the people that they’re trying the hardest to help, the folks who depend on having healthy fish stocks in order to support themselves and their families, don’t think much of their efforts, and generally think that science is—to use their own words—nothing more than “bullshit.”

I’ve already told the story about what happened two years ago, when I wrote a piece on the tragic decline of winter flounder for “From the Waterfront,” the blog of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, and someone penned a follow up comment that my

“scientific bullshit is putting our black sea bass fishery in the toilet.”

That comment didn’t seem to have much to do with winter flounder (although the piece that I wrote did heavily rely on, and made frequent reference to, “scientific bullshit” to make its point), but probably referred to a then-recent meeting of New York’s Marine Resources Advisory Council, where I relied on the information provided by state biologists, rather than the blathering of the crowd, when deciding how to vote on proposed black sea bass regulations.

It seems that the fishing industry doesn’t place a lot of weight on information provided by biologists, whether they be state, federal or otherwise employed.  That became obvious about a year ago, when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission held its New York meeting to discuss what was then the Draft Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Tautog, and an angry mob filled the meeting room to oppose any new regulations needed to manage the stock.

The Draft Amendment called for a substantial reduction in tautog landings, particularly in Long Island Sound.  The industry didn’t care for that idea, so as the presentation began, they didn’t wait very long to respond.  The speaker—again a state biologist, as the ASMFC representative was delayed by a late flight—wasn’t five minutes into his presentation when one of the mob interrupted, saying

“We don’t care about your science.  Your science is bullcrap.”

Which, I suppose, was more socially acceptable than the comment responding to my winter flounder piece, but didn’t do much to raise the level of discourse.  

And the evening went downhill from there.  Shortly after the woman representing ASMFC arrived, and took over the population, she was treated to a profanity-laden outburst from a Huntington party boat captain, which pretty well summed up the mood of the crowd.

They weren’t having any of that “science” stuff.  Not when it meant that they would have their harvest cut back.  They know that any science that calls for cutbacks just has to be wrong.

But that doesn’t mean that the industry folks think that all of the science is bad.  

Late in 2016, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center released a new, groundbreaking stock assessment for black sea bass.  It determined that the black sea bass stock was very healthy, saying

“The 2015 combined retrospective adjusted total biomass was (32,010 mt) was much greater than the B_MSYproxy (17,256 mt) and biomass threshold of 8,628 mt.  In addition, the combined retrospective adjusted [spawning stock biomass] of 22,176 mt was well above the SSB_MSY proxy of 9,667 mt and SSB proxy threshold of 4,834 mt.  Therefore the stock is not considered overfished.”

That’s clearly good news.  Black sea bass abundance, at the end of 2015, was very high.  Spawning stock biomass was about 230% of the target abundance level, and overall biomass was at 185% of target.  Those are very good numbers.

In fact, they were such good numbers that the same folks who usually refer to fisheries science as “bullshit” latched onto those figures and held them close to their hearts.  They started talking about abundance being 230 percent of target, and interpreting that to mean that regulations were far too restrictive, completely missing the point that annual catch limits were based on a target fishing mortality rate, which could be converted into a percentage of fish that could safely be removed from the population each year.

The high current abundance was already being considered as regulations were set.  But they didn’t want to hear about that part…

In the same way, the folks who were transfixed by the “230 percent above target” language either failed to read or failed to comprehend other portions of the stock assessment.  For example, the assessment noted that

“Total spawning biomass peaked in 2014 at 17,148 mt then declined in 2015 to 16,552 mt (value not adjusted for retrospective bias) as the [very large] 2011 cohort abundance declined.”

In other words, the bloom was already off the rose, and abundance had passed its peak.  The assessment clearly stated that

“F_MSY projections suggest that spawning biomass would decline to 11,849 mt [123% of target] by 2019…F_SQ projections suggest that combined area spawning biomass would decline to 15,349 mt [160% of target] by 2019…”

Those are still very good numbers, but they did indicate that black sea bass numbers were deceasing a bit, which meant that the recreational catch limit would have to go down as well.  In 2017, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council projected that spawning stock biomass would decrease to 14,183 mt in 2018, made the appropriate adjustments to the recreational harvest limit

But the new devotees of science weren’t having any of that.  

The stock assessment said that spawning stock biomass was 230% of target in 2015, and by God, 230% it was going to stay, regardless of the passage of time or the decline in actual abundance. 

In fact, like the fish in any good story, the abundance of black sea bass actually grew, with one newspaper reporter, after speaking to fishing boat captains, writing that

“The black sea bass fishery has been restored to more than 2 ½ times the levels that regulators consider sufficiently rebuilt.”

That “2 ½ times” number has been echoed in other places, by writers who should have known better.  Apparently, the boatmen have grown so enamored with fisheries science that the were no longer happy to just accept what biologists told them; they had gone on to make up even better (for them) “science” as they went along.

But that’s not how fisheries science works.  It, like the fish populations that it addresses, is dynamic and ever-changing.  Black sea bass spawning stock biomass really was at 230% of the target level a few years ago, and it may grow that large in the fairly near future, as the big 2015 year class gets older.

But right now, the science tells us that the spawning stock is a lot smaller than it was a few years ago, and everyone needs to deal with that fact.  

Of course, some people will still refuse to accept reality.

As biologist Gary Shepherd, of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, noted a year or so ago,

“We’ve taken fishermen on the [research] cruises with us to survey [fish abundance] and they say, ‘Wow, this is really great…I still don’t believe you, though.’”

And that unfortunately, is not bullshit at all.  

To some, the black sea bass spawning stock biomass will always be 230% above target—if not larger—no matter what the real numbers are.