SOUTH ATLANTIC RED SNAPPER: ANALYSIS VERSUS OPINION

 

There are recurring themes in saltwater fisheries management; the clash between scientific analyses of the state of fish stocks and fishermen’s opinions on the same subject may be the one most often seen.

Both sides have their strengths.

Scientists take an objective approach to such matters, viewing them through the lens of data that encompasses the entire range of a stock, usually extending over an extended period of time.  Sometimes that data is good, based on many different sources, gathered over the course of years.  Sometimes the data is sparse, and filled with uncertainty.  And sometimes it’s worse than that; many data-poor stocks remain.  However, the scientists who perform stock assessments many only have limited time on the water, observing the species in question.

Fishermen are rarely objective.  Whether they belong to the commercial or the recreational sector, they are typically interested in harvesting or, in the case of anglers, at least catching and releasing, the fish.  Thus, their observations are not only limited in both space and time, but they are also often limited by the fishermen's biases, which tend to reinforce their beliefs.  At the same time, good fishermen are invariably keen observers of the natural world, who understand how changing environmental conditions impact their target species, even though they might not know exactly why.

In a perfect world, fishermen and scientists would complement one another, with scientists using fishermen’s observations to suggest new lines of study and develop new information on both fish and fisheries.  I saw such collaboration in action nearly 20 years ago, when I sat on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

The Council had established a minimum size for escape vents in black sea bass pots, which was intended to allow undersized fish to escape.  The escape vents achieved their intended goal, but fishermen claimed that they also reduced their landings because the water pressure at the bottom, where the traps were fished, reduced the size of the sea bass’ bodies enough to let some legal-sized fish squeeze through the vents.  While such claims seemed unlikely, a study was undertaken, which suggested that the fishermen were right.  The size of the escape vents could be reduced.

That’s how the relationship between scientists and fishermen ought to work.

But perhaps it only worked that time because the scientists confirmed what the fishermen already believed.  If the study showed that legal-sized fish weren’t getting out through the vents, maybe the fishermen would have continued to claim that they did, just because that’s what they had already decided was true.

That’s the sort of thing that we’re seeing today in the recreational red snapper fishery in the South Atlantic.

The scientists seem to have a good case.  The red snapper stock assessment was just updated in 2021.  While it found that

“the red snapper stock has shown substantial progress toward rebuilding,”

it also found that the stock was not yet rebuilt, with spawning stock biomass at just 44% of the rebuilding target; since the fishing mortality rate was about twice the fishing mortality threshold, the stock was also experiencing overfishing.

In performing their assessment, biologists ran the data through a computer model multiple times, to address any possible uncertainty.  The results very strongly indicated that the assessment’s conclusions were correct, as 99.8% of the runs agreed that overfishing was occurring, and 97.8% agreed that the stock was not yet rebuilt.

Fishermen, however, do not seem to agree with those conclusions. 

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Snapper-Grouper Advisory Panel has taken strong exception to the findings of the updated stock assessment, and with the subsequent actions of the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee which, in response to the updated assessment, acted to reduce permissible red snapper landings by about one-third.

According to a statement that the Advisory Panel sent to the South Atlantic Council,

“the overriding feeling and opinion of the [Advisory Panel] is that red snapper are recovered…The AP overwhelmingly feels they were asked for suggestions to solve a problem that no longer exists.  The red snapper is highly abundant.  The biomass of the species is largely assumed by the AP as recovered and sufficient in abundance and range to begin a pathway to more liberal regulation of the species.”

Such “feeling and opinion” stands in direct contrast to the conclusions of the updated assessment, which based its findings on over two dozen different data sets, ranging from data on the size of red snapper released by Georgia party boats to a video counts of red snapper off the South Atlantic coast.  Such data was analyzed by a large team of fishery professionals, statistically analyzed, and run through population models.  When all of that work was done, the assessment came to a very defensible conclusion, with the only significant uncertainty being the snapper’s natural mortality rate.

The contrary view of the fishermen on the Advisory Panel were based solely

“on the collective on-the-water experience of the AP members.”

Not on data, not on independently verifiable facts, but merely on the “experience”—also described as the “feeling and opinion”—of the Advisory Panel members.

That’s often the way it goes when fishermen challenge the science, relying on experiences which may not reflect the larger reality out on the water.  As Mark Kurlansky, author of Cod:  A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World, told The New York Times with respect to New England’s fisheries,

“Fishermen will almost always tell you that [fish are abundant] and it’s not that they’re lying.  Landing a lot of fish can mean the fish are very plentiful, or it can mean the fishermen are extremely efficient in scooping up every last one of them.”

So long as fish are being caught in reasonable numbers, fishermen generally assume that numbers are high.

And we can’t discount the impacts of confirmation bias, which can be explained as

“the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.  People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.  This effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.  [emphasis added].”

Confirmation bias is a very human trait, which everyone shares to a greater or lesser extent.  However, it can be controlled, if not eliminated, in a scientific process that is based upon verifiable data, statistical analysis, and peer review.  But in the case of a fisherman who sees an increasing stock—and the updated stock assessment reveals that the South Atlantic red snapper stock, although far from recovered, is steadily increasing—and wants to be able to catch more fish on each trip, particularly if increased bag limits translate into increased income, it is easy for that fisherman to believe that the stock is recovered, and reject any suggestion to the contrary.

That is particularly true in the South Atlantic’s recreational red snapper fishery, where much of the fishing mortality is attributable to snapper that are caught during the closed season, and die after release.  In such a situation, the only way to get fishing mortality under control isn’t to just limit anglers’ red snapper landings, but also to restrict fishing for other species that share the red snapper’s habitat, to reduce red snapper bycatch and the resultant release mortality.

That is the course recommended by the South Atlantic Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee, which advised

“In the short term…the SSC recommends pursuing temporal/spatial reductions (possibly wave-based) in bottom fishing.  Seasonal differences among regions within the South Atlantic should be considered when developing these regulations, if possible.  The bulk of recreational discards for red snapper are occurring off the East Coast of Florida; thus, spatial closures may be most effective in this area.”

Fishermen naturally hope to avoid any such closures, and so want to believe that all is well with the stock.

It is a difficult issue to resolve.  Federal managers, bound by the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, are compelled to follow the science.  State managers face no such restrictions, and may well be unwilling to accept closures of fisheries targeting healthy fish stocks that support local, fishing-related businesses.  In the case of South Atlantic red snapper, Florida’s Marine Fisheries Director plainly stated

“I’ll just once again note, for the record, that [the Florida Wildlife Commission] is against closures…time-area closures aren’t going to work here in Florida.”

While such a stance might help Florida fishing businesses, it certainly won’t help South Atlantic red snapper.  Unless, of course, the red snapper stock is already recovered, which gives fishermen one more reason to choose to believe that it is.

Thus, the split between scientists and fishermen continues, in the South Atlantic and elsewhere.  The potential impact on fish stocks, if data were subordinated to “feeling and opinion,” provides one more reason why Magnuson-Stevens’ science-based management measures remain the gold standard for United States fisheries, and why state fishery programs, which often yield to fishermen’s whims, have yet to prove its match.