Are You Confident in NOAA/NMFS Trawl Surveys?

Are you confident in these government agency’s suedo scientific trawl surveys?

At 2:05.00 Russ Brown, Deputy Science and Resource Director of
the Northeast Regional Science Center gets invited to address Mr. Kendalls
questions by  Dr Chris Legualt. He was also the lead scientist fot the ECO
SYSTEM SURVEY BRANCH, explains why they are using the gear they are using on Bigelow.                                                                                                  

They went through a six year advisory process which included stake holders to get the right gear for surveys,

consulting with industry, the NEFMC, Mid Atlantic FMC, along with key academic stakeholders,

(whoever they are), professors who study fish behavior, and fishing gear, and things like that. Things like that? Fishing gear?

The group then decided what the objective would be, including the protocols to be used on the vessel itself.

He goes on to say,”The Center is conducting an ECO SYSTEM SURVEY.” “A multi specie survey that is not targeting any single specie,

but the objectives of the group was to design a survey to sample a variety of habitats, a variety of species, a variety of sizes within those species,

to really get a picture of what the eco system looks like.

“When you design a survey like that, there are a lot of trade offs you need to make in terms of spatially where you sample,

the types of gear you’re using, etc.”

Trade off’s? In like not collecting the data needed to sample abundance?

10 Responses to Are You Confident in NOAA/NMFS Trawl Surveys?

  1. scupguy says:

    Excelent idea. Hope lots respond!

  2. borehead says:

    Damned good question! I don't think so, though.
    I'm trying ro add stuff like features fishermen want to see, not just political bullshit.

  3. Dick Grachek says:

    This idea of sampling an entire eco-system at once is ridiculous to begin with; but it is beyond irresponsible when the data from such an attempt, gathered with a type of sweep that wouldn’t catch Yellowtail under any conditions, is used as a basis for fishery-devastating regulations.

    NOAA is able to find the money for aquaculture research and start-ups and for pushing catch shares; yet, according to the Northeast Regional Science Center they lack the funds to carry out single-species surveys. So the single-species Yellowtail Flounder fishery is about to be shut down based on faulty data, collected from an errant mission to sample the entire multi-species eco-system. Yellowtail is a species essential to the groundfishery and to the scallop industry; explaining this research debacle away with a lot of bureaucratic gibberish about eco-system sampling is reprehensible incompetence and stark disrespect for the people whose livelihoods will suffer because of this—and it is an example of what the matter is with NOAA.

    Stock information needs to be gathered from many sources, including the research carried out every day on the ocean by everyday working fishermen. Researchers need to go out with fishermen who happen to know where the fish are and when and how to catch them—it’s a step in the scientific method called gathering information and data in the field, in this case from people who know the field and who live and work in the field. Do the “scientists” think that they know more about finding and catching fish than the fishermen?

  4. borehead says:

    Just the idea of non fishermen trying to catch fish with fishing gear is absurd.
    I'll tell ya Dicky, I'm convinced Brown really slipped up when he nade that statement about trade offs. The collateral damage is proving to be devestating.
    They really need to be called on that.

  5. Dick Grachek says:

    Yes, BH I guess he did slip up; he told the TRUTH about the way they conduct surveys.

    From the "What's The Matter With NOAA" entry in the "Recent Posts" column to the right:

    "Research is needed that puts the researchers on fishing vessels captained and crewed by experienced, successful, and independent fishermen—fishermen who are not now, or who don’t soon plan to be, on anyone’s payroll but their own. Fishermen must be involved who know how to catch a particular species, know what gear to use, how to work the gear, and where and when to look for the particular species that is being surveyed and assessed. Only this kind of cooperative research will render trustworthy data."

    The Providence Journal article about the Point Judith meeting with NOAA on Monday Sept 10, was a bit short on text; but a lot of what was discussed was about some realistic surveys and assessments instead of the garbage they're trying to pass off on us and the public as "science".

    These remarks calling out the junk science were directed at Dr. Karp the new Dir. of the Northeast Science Center at Woods Hole, MA. His maddening response was that they would work in the future to better "explain the science" to us. As if the problem was that we didn't understand their sophisticated methods? That's what happens when you can't think beyond your own discipline; you become linear and rigid; just like the computer models they're trying to squeeze fishing into.

    I'm no scientist (gratefully); but I sure know a load of CYA BS when I see it!

  6. Dick Grachek says:


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.