Accountability too long in coming

Accountability. No matter how it's described, defined or used, it is often lacking in government scientific circles.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has been ordered by a judge to go back and straighten out the shark stock assessment before coming up with any more management measures. In the meantime, commercial fishermen must continue to adhere to quotas implemented in 1997 ‑ quotas that have been found to be based on miscalculations and questionable data.

It took four years and legal actions costing about $250,000 for the commercial fisherman to get what they were entitled to from the beginning ‑ fairness and a shot at good scientifically‑based decision‑making. Only time will tell if both actually come to pass.

Here's the irony. The fishermen's tax dollars paid for the indefensible "science," footed the bill for the "government's'' cost of the lawsuit aimed at defending the indefensible work, and ‑ directly out of their own pockets ‑ paid to get a court to demand that NMFS produce what it is charged with‑science‑based fisheries management.

While recognizing that there are many devoted, let‑the‑chips fall where they may scientists in government employment, there are also those who use their positions to pave the way for later employment in the private sector or to please cronies in special‑interest groups.

There was a time when linking a scientist's name to any information gave credibility and stature to the "findings." That was before politics, big money and monumental egos entered the scientific areas.

Reasonable people should always pose, reasonable questions about new data, but those dealing with fisheries science should feel obligated to ask how and whom Information was obtained and how it was applied in reaching a conclusion.

Examples of scientific abuse are widespread but fisheries science, unlike most other scientific disciplines, rarely is peer reviewed. Once it reaches the printed page, more often than not it is assumed to be gospel.

A prime example of misuse of information (and abuse of those it is designed to serve) can be found In the NMFS's shark stock assessment and the resulting fisheries management plan.

In 1997, NMFS decided that its data indicated that the shark quota needed to be slashed by half. Commercial fishermen disagreed with the stock assessment.

Not only were the conclusions of the stock assessment questioned, but also the process used to formulate the assessment.

Fishermen and their representatives were, for the most part, left out of the process. But scientists employed by vari­ous nonprofit groups were included in the decision‑making and incorporated opinions and biases into the findings.

The fishermen filed suit against the federal government, asking that the stock assessment be reviewed by a panel of scientists who were not affiliated with any special‑interest groups, the government or any other entity that might inspire a biases process.

Justice is a wonderful thing, but while its slow‑moving wheels were barely advancing, many fishermen were forced out of the industry And while the wheels were spinning, NMFS continued making Pronouncements including one that if it had been allowed, would have shut down the entire industry.

Although slow in coming, sweet justice arrived. A court or­dered review by five scientists at the independent consulting firm National Resource Council In Seattle, Wash., issued reports two weeks ago saying that the scientific conclusions and management recommendations used to set the shark quotas and related measures at issue were not based on "scientifically reasonable uses of appropriate fisheries stock assessment techniques and the best available biological and fishery  information related to large coastal sharks. "

Now the corker: Everyone, including the original scientists, already knew that.

While the government scientists go back to the drawing board, both fishing and nonfishing interests should be ask­ing why such shoddy, opinionated work is allowed to be conducted at taxpayer expense and why it should take an expensive court case to get the attention of those in a position to correct it

Accountability. It shouldn't be just "available upon re­quest " It should be part of the standard package of government services.

Outer Banks Sentinel

National Newspaper Association

North Carolina Press Association

P.O. 546, Nags Head, NC 27959

http:www.obsentinel.com

Kevin Schwartz, Publisher

Cornelia Olive, Editor