Protecting our national fish stocks from ruin by overfishing is a national imperative that requires both good management and solid science. NOAA, the agency responsible for managing our fisheries, is incapable of even adequate management, as shown by a recent independent review by Preston Pate.
At a 4/13/11 Senate subcommittee hearing (video from minute 98), Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire challenged NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco: "NOAA has been relying on … incomplete and sometimes non-existent [fisheries] data." Dr. Lubchenco responded with the expected evasion and the familiar patronizing talking point about "best available science information that we have."
Dr. Lubchenco, what if your best available science is not very good? What if, in fact, it is flawed? This is not a rhetorical question, as there is evidence that the vaunted NOAA fisheries science is indeed unsound.
Every year, by law, NOAA puts out a fisheries report to the Congress. This is NOAA's chance to show off in the very best light. Table 1 of NOAA's annual report to Congress on the 2009 Status of U.S. Fisheries covers 522 fish stocks. Twenty-three percent of the most important 230 stocks have no data, being termed either "unknown" or "undefined." Is this what we have to show for forty years of effort — a three-quarter understanding of our important fish stocks? Overall, of the 522 stocks, 51% have no data. No data on over half of the fish stocks, and this is our best available science?
Read the complete opinion piece from American Thinker.