Roy,

A few minutes after your e-mail about red snapper arrived on Friday, April 24, 2009, I received an e-mail from Dr. Gary Thomas about the current state of fisheries science. His remarks are revealing and echoes our concerns about science used to ban red snapper fishing in the South Atlantic Ocean.

Many in the fishing industry are concerned NMFS is too powerful and unchecked in controlling the marine fisheries of the United States. I have felt that way going back to the time I was Chairman of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, (1981). NMFS has plenty of competent scientists, but from our point of view there are no checks and balances in the way our lives are managed by NMFS. For instance: 

1.                  NMFS screens council nominees submitted by Governor’s

2.                  NMFS recommends appointments to the Secretary of Commerce

3.                  NMFS conducts or pays selected grantees for desired research

4.                  NMFS interprets the research submitted to them

5.                  NMFS helps draft proposed regulations

6.                  NMFS interprets the regulations

7.                  NMFS recommends regulations through the council process

8.                  NMFS approves or rejects council proposed regulations

9.                  NMFS enforces the regulations

10.              NMFS Administrative Judges sentence violators of NMFS regulations

There is a pattern here that can lead to blemished decision-making. There is little oversight on the day to day operation of NMFS, other than cursory reviews by Congress or GAO on an infrequent basis.

There is a natural tendency of survival by NMFS employees not to “rock the boat” or question scientific conclusions due to repercussions from the leaders of the agency.

There is a tendency within government, and in the private sector as well, that if you want to get along you need to go along. That’s a natural way of surviving for many folks and agencies and is understandable. But there is a line that must not be crossed.

NMFS is not only in control of the process from A to Z, it controls millions of dollars that appear to be directed to science projects not in conflict with NMFS agenda. 

Science is supposed to be robust, complex, controversial and honest. Young scientists, or even old scientists, should examine other scientists’ stock assessments. If their own independent science shows changes or miscalculations, the new science should be published with the errors corrected. In our opinion that’s what science is all about. Science should never be used in a manner where the end justifies the means. The end should justify the hypothesis through experimentation and replication.

Dr. Thomas makes several important points in his e-mail that he copied you, Senator Nelson’s rep Lynn Bannister, Bob Mahood and Captain Paul Nelson.

He talked about a paper presented last week at U of M. It was about sailfish, which should be applicable to other species in that, “there was far too much variability in the catch data to ever show a trend in the change of relative abundance.” I think I understand what the presenter said, but at some point in time, I will have to step back and let a true scientist do the talking. The presenter further said, “This is exactly the same presentation that was made by Paul Smith (NMFS) in 1970 at the SWFSC in La Jolla, when he concluded that fishery dependent data were not valid for determining trends in marine fish abundance.”

It seems that independent science, not in any manner tied to a predetermined conclusion is the way to go for the benefit of the fish, fishermen and NMFS. If independent science supports what NMFS says, then so be it. If it doesn’t, then new science projects need to be designed and funded to find the truth, no matter how illusive it might be. Dr. Thomas points out that catch is a function of two behaviors. If NMFS is only using the catch data, or one behavior, then “the data are fundamentally and irreparably flawed.”

We need independent science. A possible way we can get that is to reprogram some of the S-K money for independent science critical to the management of red snapper and other species defined as overfished. NMFS has the money to fund independent science although I don’t know how much money is in the S-K reserve at this time.

We are being lead to a paradigm that NMFS isn’t interested in funding independent stock assessments of exploited species because it doesn’t want any of its mistakes, if there are some, to become public knowledge. Without an independent stock assessment, any mistakes NMFS has made can be obscured from the public until the end of time. I’ve learned from listening and reading that if NMFS doesn’t have to measure fish directly, and can use catch trends; chances of us going out of business is far greater than NMFS creating sustainable fisheries under the present scientific protocols.

My mentors have this to say, “Why don’t we put a working group of scientists and fishermen together to assess the feasibility of acquiring empirical data for the assessment of the red snapper fishery in the South Atlantic area? The goal might be the development of preseason empirical data that would allow an escapement-based fishery to develop that protects a predetermined stock size for spawning fish, and allow harvests of all fish above that level. At a minimum, we would be looking to develop an empirical method for measuring natural mortality and making adjustments to the harvests before the fishery instead of after the damage is done (spawners depleted or harvest truncated). The economic benefits of a sustained fishery would be better than no fishery and conservation would also be served.”

Red snapper are plentiful. We know that because we are on the water when the weather lets us and we see them in great abundance. We have a standing offer for any biologist to come go with our fishermen and see what we see, but so far nobody from NMFS or the SA Council has accepted our invitation. That makes me think they don’t want to know how many red snapper are in the water.

We will have additional scientific data on the SEDAR to send to you in the near future that we hope will convince you not to deliver the death knell to the fishermen and communities that depend on catching red snapper on the Atlantic coast.

I refrained from writing about “sequestered science” and other situations I’ve observed over the past 46 years. The industry wants to concentrate on today and how we can stop the insanity surrounding the national drive to stifle commercial and recreational fishing to accomplish a not so hidden agenda.

You have a tough job and we know it. We, who suffer the impact of NMFS regulations, have a tough life as do the families and myriad businesses dependent on the fruit of our labor.

The government must look at the faces and lives of those harmed by their regulations.

Sincerely yours,