As I've been saying for years, the problem isn't lack of data, it's the fact the data is being ignored to support an alternative agenda. Not all NMFS's data is accurate, recruitment statistics, discard mortality rates for both recreational (overstated) and commercial (grossly understated), recreational catch using admittedly wrong MRIP statistics, assignable weight values between sectors etc.. But some data is relatively accurate and decisions being made essentially ignore it. MSA mandates that data drives decisions and not personal agendas, economics and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats which is the world we've been living in for too many years.
Dave you know I used NMFS's own data in my research so they couldn't say I introduced new data like they did when SSFFF tried to submit a new model factoring gender composition into their algorithms. Right approach but they gave NMFS an immediate out as NMFS stated "New Model has to be Peer Reviewed" so it was game over and it never got the traction or attention it deserved. Here's an article which chronicles the effort.
https://onthewater.com/news/2018/02/...flounder-stock
Dr. Pat Sullivan is I believe a member of this site and can opine if he so chooses. Like my work, their work fell on deaf ears. SSFFF because it challenged the existing model and required Peer Review, mine because it exposed the decisions NMFS, ASMFC and MAFMC have been making over the last two decades have actually caused the stock's declines.
Dave you know no one ever said my "relational trend analysis" was wrong because it's not and they couldn't attack the data because its their own. The crap that goes on behind the scenes would astonish everyone yet it's never discussed. All we hear about every year are quotas, season lengths and size and possession limits, nothing to do with how the fishery is being managed to address the problems they're facing. Precisely why we go from everything is fine to 42% cuts in quota and potentials moratoriums. Everything else gets buried in 400 plus page stock assessments which no one sees or discusses and its that way for a reason. And now the Commission and Council will only entertain questions and comments from the public of their choice, that's called censorship. And that all changed because my analysis hit a nerve and they didn't want it disseminated in the briefing materials at regulatory meetings.
60 million decline in the female composition of the summer flounder stock over the last 15 years due to regulatory mandates to harvest larger age classes and increase commercial catch values (almost exclusively females), major decline in the female composition of every age class (massive problem) and recruitment levels at continually declining and now historically low levels not seen since the 80's. You don't need a Ph.D. to realize what's causing the stock's decline yet the lead scientist Mark Terceiro at NOAA for the last decade or more has essentially stated and I'm paraphrasing "we have no idea why recruitment has fallen off the cliff." That's politics talking, not science and it's killing the stock.
BB: Guess you have to change your "trend analysis" data as no one cares! Dave, you're starting to sound like Adam Nowalsky. It's not the analysis which is flawed, it's the self serving individuals pulling the strings who repeatedly ignore the problems these fisheries are faced with. I'd bet if ASA filed a lawsuit against NOAA and NMFS for misappropriation of stock quotas or malfeasance in the manner NMFS, ASMFC and MAFMC have collectively mismanaged these two stocks, a judge just might care. At minimum, it'd be worth the effort. Commercials do it all the time, why not the recreational sector or ASA on our behalf through the use of money we fund through our own spending.
I viewed this data from a completely different perspective to analyze twenty year long trends showing how the summer flounder fishery fell apart by using size as a means of managing the stock. The same type analysis can be used for any fishery including menhaden, stripers, winter flounder, cod, whiting etc. The analysis is sound, conclusions are supported by facts but the problem is there's too much money involved and the system is as corrupt as it gets. Change that dynamic and you have a chance to actually manage these stocks again and start saving fisheries and ecosystems like the Chesapeake as opposed to exploiting them. How in the good Lord's name did we ever get here. The majestic Chesapeake Bay turned into a cesspool all for the benefit of a few conglomerates and corrupt politicians.
