September 27, 2015 — Science plays a big role in managing fisheries.

Scientists assess fish stocks, migration patterns, environmental issues — useful data that allow regulators to set policy.

We expect our science to be accurate and unaffected by politics, and as citizens, we expect political actors to treat science in the same manner.

Even Robert Fritchey, the author of Wetland Riders, a history of the Coastal Conservation Association, acknowledges that size limits, creel limits and other restrictions are necessary, and that “the science of estimating recreational discards and mortality is vastly improved.” Which would suggest that if interest groups are put aside, there is some hope science could be used in an unbiased manner to help manage fisheries.

Yet a series of e-mails found their way into the public domain from a 2007 round-robin discussion among several N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries scientists trying to peg a mortality rate for speckled seatrout caught by recreational anglers. See video

It would take a few hundred words to demonstrate where science goes off the rails and how other factors, including interest group reactions, exert an influence on what is expected to be an unbiased, fact-driven process.

The group of six scientists struggled. They questioned even the scope of the studies. “I have a problem with the adjusted values. The handling effect is a real phenomenon with recreational fishing and is definitely a cause for release mortality . . . this study wasn’t designed to look at stress-related mortality . . . ” said one team member.

Read the full story at The Outer Banks Voice