NMFS SEEKS TO IMPROVE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES DATA

 

Every so often, I think about a sign that I’ve seen in some auto repair shops, and in other places where similar work is done, which read something like:

“You can have it done right, done cheap, or done fast.  Pick two out of three.”

Such sentiments don’t only apply to the skilled trades.  I used it more than once during my tenure at Barclay’s Capital when salesmen, worried that their new customer, and thus their commission, would soon fade away, complained that negotiating a contract was taking too long and was putting the new relationship at risk (although, at that place and time, I’d note that “cheap” was always a given, so that the only remaining choice was between getting the job finished fast or putting the agreement together in the right way).

It has recently struck me that the same principles apply to collecting the data needed to properly manage recreational fisheries.

Certainly, as at my former employer, “cheap” is always a big consideration for fisheries managers, not because they or their agencies want it that way, but because they’re never appropriated sufficient funds to carry out their duties that they’re assigned.  The North Carolina legislature’s recent decision to force that state’s fisheries managers to develop and maintain a system to support mandatory catch reporting, without providing long-term funding for the personnel needed to make the system work, is just one example of that sort of issue, but we can rest assured that managers in other states face the same sort of issues. 

Nor is it merely a state concern; politicians love to attack the federal recreational fisheries data, but they are very, very slow to appropriate the funds needed to not only fix the known issues impacting the fishery management system, but to enhance the system to make its estimates both more timely and more accurate.

Individual anglers aren’t much better.  Here in New York, as elsewhere, we hear constant complaints about the recreational black sea bass regulations.  Anglers, and members of the angling industry, complain that the rules are too restrictive, and speculate that the landings estimates far overstate the number of fish that anglers retain.  Yet, just last year, when the State of New York floated the idea of a recreational fishing license, which would generate revenues that would, among other things, be used to enhance recreational data collection, it met with enough resistance, much from the same persons who slam the current landing estimates, that the effort to introduce a license was shelved.

It seems that the state’s anglers wanted better data, as long as they didn’t have to pay a red cent to get it.  On the other hand, they can keep on complaining for free.

We see something similar when it comes to the speed at which recreational effort, catch, and landings data can be completed.

Annual catch limits govern the landings of all federally-managed recreational species (with the arguable exception of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s “Percent Change Approach” used to manage summer flounder, scup, black sea bass and, eventually, bluefish, although that approach is currently being challenged in the courts and may not survive).  Each year, fishery managers must craft regulations that will allow anglers to catch most of their allotted fish, but at the same time prevent them from exceeding the annual catch limit.  The Marine Recreational Information Program, which is used to estimate recreational catch and landings and to advise the regulatory process, is a sort of blunt instrument when used for such purpose, both because angler behavior changes from year to year, making predictions difficult, and because there is some level of uncertainty in every estimate made. 

Often, despite managers’ best efforts, the resulting regulations either prove to be too restrictive, and unnecessarily restrict landings, or not restrictive enough, and allow landings to climb well above the recreational limit.  However, the adequacy of regulations can only be determined well after the season has closed.  Generally, preliminary landings information for any two-month “wave” only becomes available about 45 days after such wave ends (thus, information for landings in Wave 3, May and June, won’t be available until around August 15), while final annual estimates don’t come out until April 15 of the following year, severely limiting their usefulness in the regulatory process.

But this is where the tension between doing something fast and doing something right kicks in.

While MRIP estimates have a solid statistical base, errors nonetheless creep in.  Thus, the National Marine Fisheries Service doesn’t release the data as soon as it is compiled, but instead conducts a review to look for possible sampling error and anomalous estimates.  As NMFS notes on the MRIP website,

“Our staff practices quality assurance and control measures before our estimates are published.  We check for errors in data entry and investigate any unusual changes in catch and effort trends.  We also involve NOAA Fisheries’ regional offices and science centers, who have on-the-ground knowledge, in the review of preliminary estimates before they are published.”

As part of the quality control process, NMFS will

“Manually review our estimates for potential errors at each step of analysis.  Regional partners are able to flag unusually high or low (outlier) estimates based in their familiarity with local fisheries and fish stocks.”

Also, NMFS will

“Use statistically backed approaches to systematically identify outlier estimates.  [It considers] several factors to investigate the reason for a sudden increase or decrease and determine whether corrections must be made.  For example:  Is the estimate based on a small sample size, or influenced by an unusual data point?  Did a weather event or change in fishing regulations cause a spike or sharp decline in related fishing activity?”

While that process significantly increases the quality of MRIP’s estimates, it also takes a substantial amount of time to complete.  That time lag can lead to problems in some popular fisheries, where timely data would allow active, in-season management that could respond to changing trends in recreational landings.

The black sea bass fishery in New England and the mid-Atlantic has seen anglers chronically exceed the relevant catch and landings limits; no management approach yet tried has been able to constrain the excessive harvest.  More timely data, that would allow managers to shut down the fishery when relevant limits were exceeded, would be a big step forward in black sea bass management.  But such data just isn’t there.

Some individuals and organizations have suggested that NMFS allow or require anglers to directly report their catch, perhaps through a smartphone app.  Unfortunately, such samples can easily be subject to high levels of uncertainty, attributable to angler noncompliance, incorrect data entry (either accidental or intentional), some anglers’ unfamiliarity of or lack of electronic devices, etc.  Unlike MRIP data, such electronically collected data could be compiled and made available much more quickly, but it would not be subject to the same quality controls, and would be badly lacking in precision.

However, some progress seems to have been made in the Gulf of Mexico, where the five Gulf states, working with NMFS, have developed supplementary data collection programs which have been certified as compatible with, and thus suitable enhancements to, MRIP.  Unfortunately, such data enhancements have only been extended to a handful of species, primarily red snapper.  And even though they were developed in conjunction with NMFS, and certified to be compatible with MRIP, each one works in a slightly different way, so that the output from each state’s data collection program must be adjusted so that it reports catch in the same “common currency” as MRIP, which is necessary before it can be used in stock assessments and to set state regulations.

Still, the Gulf red snapper programs have proven reliable enough to convince NMFS to attempt similar data enhancements elsewhere.  Yesterday, NMFS announced its plans to “re-vision” the recreational data collection process by creating processes that produce data that is

“Nationally coherent, regionally specific.”

More specifically, NOAA is seeking partnerships with state management agencies, and perhaps other entities, in the hope of improving the data collection process.  In that regard, one of the goals of the new data initiative is

“Supporting state and regional partners in the Atlantic, West Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii in the development and certification of additional state data-collection programs to produce more timely and precise catch and effort estimates for key regional species.”

That’s a worthwhile goal.

While there will always be naysayers who question the worth of MRIP, regardless of how many improvements might be made, and others—or perhaps the same people—who will try to arbitrage the findings of state and federal programs, supporting whichever one allows anglers to kill more fish, improving the MRIP program to make it more responsive to managers needs is something that deserves every angler’s support.

Good management requires good data, so in the end, a better MRIP benefits everyone.  With luck, NMFS will be able to put together a data collection program that provides better data faster, and does so at a reasonable cost.

Should that ever happen, we’ll all have to rethink the old rule.  Maybe it will be possible to have it all, and no longer necessary to just pick two attributes out of those three.