By John Pappalardo
When the executive committee of New England Fishery Management Council, which I serve on, sends a 17-page letter to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center saying they need to get their act together and make profound improvements for the sake of American fishermen, that’s a big deal.
The Management Council is at the top of the regional pyramid when it comes to creating fishery policies and regulations, though what we propose still needs to be approved in Washington.
The Science Center out of Woods Hole does all the fieldwork and scientific studies to define what our fishermen can catch and still keep stocks healthy. Their survey work and analysis is crucial to defining most decisions.
The researchers in this system try, they care. They do not have any nefarious plan to try to destroy our fishing community. But the processes they are using, rationales and structures, are causing serious harm.
This traditional process is not accounting for true facts on the water, or adjusting to a fast-changing climate and environment. Instead of thinking holistically about the goal — to maintain a sustainable fishery and fish populations — it is filling in ones and zeroes on an antiquated spreadsheet.
Obvious reforms and improvements, recognized for years, are not being implemented. The system has failed.
This assessment is not being made by people who do not believe in government, and want to dismantle it. This is an assessment made by people like me, who have spent a career engaged, trying to make it work.
To give you a sense of how stark this is, the council’s letter begins with a scathing “background statement,” a preamble to a lengthy, detailed analysis:
Background
There has been a fundamental breakdown in the scientific support system for fisheries management in the New England region. This includes, but is not limited to, data collection systems and treatments, stock assessments, and peer review processes.
The results of this deterioration in the quality of scientific products have contributed to extreme instability in catch advice and fishery yield (e.g., substantial up and down swings in catch advice year over year), impacts to markets and price (e.g., reduced supply chains and depressed ex‐vessel revenue), loss of community value and infrastructure (e.g., reduced processing capacity, shifts in employment opportunities, loss of reliable and competent crew, and loss of recreational fishing opportunities), and ultimately a trajectory towards substantial decline of the region’s fishing industry.
In federal bureaucracy, language doesn’t get much more pointed than this.
The following 15 pages is a blow-by-blow, tactics and strategies, fish stock by fish stock, of systemic problems and operating failures. Individuals are not called out, but a mindset is:
We continue to regulate based on assumptions that aren’t true anymore. We continue to survey, analyze, categorize based on what we did before, how it’s always been.
The results, over and over, lead to decisions that fishermen and others who closely observe the oceans say are wrong. This in turn creates wild annual swings in crucial things like how much quota should be landed year by year. Uncertainty undermines the industry. Credibility is destroyed. People no longer believe they should play by the rules.
Biological sampling, stock assessments, recreational data, modeling, scaling, peer review, communication – the list goes on, and in each area there are strong, practical recommendations for improvement. For anyone interested in a deep dive, here’s a link:
https://d23h0vhsm26o6d.cloudfront.net/241217-NEFMC-to-NEFSC-Scientific-Support-Issues.pdf
I mentioned the opening “background statement.” The report bookends with a clarion call that if anything is even stronger. Again, federal language rarely if ever becomes as pointed as this:
Conclusion
The confidence of New England’s fishery managers and fishing industry members in the scientific products that are needed to support catch advice and management decisions has significantly decreased. There has been a growing sentiment that the NEFSC’s resources have shifted away from producing reliable scientific information for management and that there is a lack of accountability in supporting regional management partners and the fishing industry.
The challenges outlined in this letter are magnified by, and a distraction from, the unprecedented environmental changes which are fundamentally reshaping New England fisheries. At a time when close collaboration and innovation between the NEFSC and Council is most needed, this partnership is at its lowest point.
The timeliness needed to address these concerns is paramount so that the NEFSC and Council can work together to address the additive challenges of dynamic ecosystems and non‐stationarity in our stocks. The region’s scientists and managers together must hold themselves responsible for providing the best available information to make decisions that impact the lives and fishing communities of New England.
We are committed to collaborative approaches to ensure the scientific support system is improved.
John Pappalardo, CEO
The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance