Interesting analogy, I agree with the point you're making and here's why from my understanding of the process. There's a tremendous amount of data and assumptions built into these models. I don't question the need, scientific effort or peer review for that matter in fishery management. What I challenge, and believe management should as well, are material unexplained changes in historical relationships not being discussed or addressed and the data and assumptions driving these models changing materially based on a different but still questionable means of collection resulting in radically different findings. The later I believe is the basis of your above comment.

Example. In the latest stock assessment (66th SAW) issued February of this year, based on changed reference points, spawning stock biomass “SSB” for the years 2002 through 2012 are shown exceeding what is referred to as “targeted biomass reference point proxy”. More important, in the prior assessment (57th SAW) released in 2013 and for the same period, those years reflect SSB being less than the target level in each of those years. The relevance of that is it’s my understanding if the target level is not attained, that triggers provisions of Magnuson-Stevens Act “MSA” resulting in catch levels being cut. So to your point, if both recreational and commercial have already been penalized so to speak in past years based on the data used in those years, why are only recreational anglers being penalized a second time by 40% if that’s already been factored into prior year catch limits visa vie reduced possession limits and increased size restrictions. For that matter, why aren’t those penalties reversed resulting in more liberal limits which is what the commercial sector received. Don’t fully understand how historical data can be changed which caused adverse regulatory impacts for those years involved but the impacts are not only not changed they’re doubled up on in 2019. That’s the credit owed in the bank account I believe you’re referring to and if so I agree.

In the 57th SAW, 2002 SSB was estimated around 49,000 metric tons. In the 66th SAW just released, the number for that year was changed to approximately 65,000 metric tons, 30% higher. A change of that magnitude within two consecutive stock assessments should be reason for concern regarding the accuracy / integrity of the data being used in models since it ultimately dictates access to the resource.

One last observation involving the process. There’s a statement in the 57th SAW which reads as follows “Commercial landings have accounted for 54% of total catch since 1982. With recreational landings accounting for 34%, commercial discards 8% and recreational discards about 5%”. That equates to commercial discards estimates being 15% of commercial landings.

There’s also a graph that shows a comparison of commercial discard rates on observed trawls versus unobserved trawls meaning numbers submitted on fishing vessel trip reports “FVTR” which is the honor system method used by commercial operators to report catch information. Completely unsubstantiated, they can report anything. The disparity is glaring. I’ll give you five years between 2000 and 2011, first number is discard percentage on observed trawls, second number is percentage on unobserved for those years. 2001 (98% vs 40%), 2006 (85% vs 40%), 2007 (144% vs 56%), 2008 (98% vs 38%) and 2009 (59% vs 22%). Average those five years for discard rates on observed trawls and it’s just shy of 100% and 2-3 times higher than figures reported on vessel trip reports yet a substantially lower commercial discard percentage is used in the models. Maybe that’s the answer to the mystery surrounding where all the 2-yr and younger age class fishing are mysteriously disappearing to. Recreational catch limits are penalized 40% based on a new approach to collecting data through MRIP which is completely speculative as far as quality of responses are concerned but a major disparity in commercial discard rates used in models versus what is physically observed is completely ignored. Seems once again recreational has one set of standards and commercial has a completely different more liberal set.

Billfish hope that addresses your question.