WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 29, 2015 – The following excerpt appeared on September 27, 2015 in the Outer Banks Voice. Its author, Russell Lay, is co-owner and journalist at Outer Banks Voice, and an advocate for menhaden fishermen:

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 mortality rate is important because it is applied to the estimated landings of recreationally caught species and used to assign “catch quotas” for recreational and commercial interests.

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.

They also expressed concerns over small sample sizes, differing numbers based on seasonality and salinity of the water, and a wide variance in mortality rates produced by the studies – from a low of 7.3 percent to a high of 19.4 percent.

For those who skipped the video, one comment by DMF scientist Douglas Mumford angered commercial fishermen already suspicious of state and national studies that were reducing stock assessment numbers in several species and therefore, reducing commercial quotas.

“If we put the 19.4 percent on the table, (recreational) folks will flip out. They’ll tell you there is no way 1 out of 5 fish they release dies,” Mumford wrote.

In the end the group decided to go at the low end and chose a mortality rate of 9.8 percent, even though more than one scientist felt a range closer to 14.8 percent was more accurate.

In 2015, another clash between science and politics took place.

The state Division of Marine Fisheries had ordered a stock assessment of southern flounder, a species many believe is suffering from a decline in North Carolina.

Commercial fishermen dispute those claims, citing rising numbers in commercial landings with no concurrent loss of landings on the recreational side, even while previous restrictions on southern flounder have reduced the catch effort by 137 percent, according to Britton Shackleford, president of North Carolina Watermen United.

Even though the DMF staff recommended against releasing the study, which subsequently failed to pass a peer review, DMF director Dr. Louis Daniel, backed by recreational members of the Marine Fisheries Commission and at-large member Chuck Laughridge (a life member of the Coastal Conservation Association), as well as the CCA and another recreational interest group, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), declared their intention to move forward on reducing the commercial catch of southern flounder.

Once again, commercial fishermen, noting a study that failed to pass a scientific peer review, saw the “flawed study” still being used to reduce commercial operations, and adding further fuel to the fire regarding whether science or politics was dictating policy at the state level.

While a group of 13 state senators and representatives was able to persuade the MFC to delay taking action on imposing those restrictions until their September meeting, vote counters in Raleigh worry that inland Republicans will follow the CCA lead and allow the MFC to impose restrictions even though the science backing the decision has failed to pass academic muster.

Menhaden was once a major economic contributor to coastal North Carolina communities.

Severe restrictions on menhaden harvesting were imposed in North Carolina and other states based on a 2012 stock assessment from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which claimed the species had been severely overfished by the commercial industry.

Read the full op-ed at Outer Banks Voice