The Ripple Effects of Federal Action: A Case Study
posted at 8:39 pm on February 17, 2010 by Slublog
On April 18, the Bumble Bee Foods sardine cannery in Gouldsboro, Maine will close and 128 people will lose their jobs. That may not sound like a large number, but Gouldsboro is a small town, with a population of only 1,941 as of the 2000 census. So the jobs lost represent 6% of the town’s total population. To a community that small, that’s a stunning blow.
The jobs lost in Gouldsboro are not the fault of the financial crisis, or the continuing recession. They are the direct result of a decision made by the federal government.
Melody Kimball, a spokesperson for the San Diego-based company, confirmed the announcement Wednesday afternoon.Kimball said reductions in the federal limit on herring is the main reason behind the company’s decision. In 2004, the federal limit was 180,000 metric tons but this year it is only 91,000 metric tons, she said. With such catch restrictions, the plant is no longer economically viable, she said.
In six years, the federal government has reduced by half the ability to harvest the fish stock that companies and individuals depend on to make a living. And the damages aren’t limited to the sardine industry. Herring is the bait fish of choice for lobster fishermen, and limiting the supply will dramatically increase the cost of a product they cannot do their jobs without. Unfortunately, this is only the latest move by the federal government that hurts lobstermen.
Last year, a new rule on lobster rope went into effect. It required lobstermen to discard the floating rope commonly used for a new, more expensive, sinking rope.
Jones said it costs him $500 to $600 a day just to go out fishing. That includes the cost of fuel, bait and wages he pays a sternman to help him at sea.“If you can get between 500 and 700 pounds a day, you’ll do all right,” said Jones. “I haven’t had fishing like I have in the past, but I haven’t pushed as hard.”
Jones said the use of sink rope, which wears out faster than float rope, has done more than just add to the cost of fishing. It has added to his workload, too, because it has to be replaced more often.
“It’s a frig,” he said. “The bottom’s so rocky where we fish, it just pooches out. If you get one season out of [sink rope], you’re doing good.”
More expensive bait, more expensive rope…and thanks to the current administration, fuel costs are likely to go up. These are a lot of barriers to an industry that is already suffering and each of them, again, are a direct result of decisions made by the federal government.
There are very good reasons for setting limits on the herring catch each year. These rules prevent overfishing, which is vital to the continued sustainability of the industry. The herring industry brings $40 million into the Maine economy; and the lobster industry brings $300 million. Given how much the federal rules could affect the state’s economy and those who work in the industry, one would hope that those decisions are based on sound science.
Herring is not overfished, or subject to overfishing, but the New England Fishery Management Council’s Science and Statistical Committee has identified a troubling “retrospective pattern” in runs of a computer model used to profile the stock.Erring on the side of caution, the committee has decided to advise reducing the maximum catch next year from 145,000 metric tons to 90,000 metric tons.
The degree of unreliability in the retrospective pattern was considered to range between 17 and 37 percent. But the committee rounded up to a 40 percent cut in the “acceptable biological catch,” a scientific calculation of the sustainable harvest level used to set the upper level of the total allowable catch.
You read that correctly. The federal government has decided that a computer model was enough to make a decision that impacts hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and the livelihood of thousands of people. Good thing those models are never wrong, huh?
The fate of the herring and lobster industries may not be the most exciting subject, but they show how seemingly small decisions made by people who work for the federal government can have destructive effects upon the lives of thousands of people.
Call it “trickle-down” regulations.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
And to think, many so called conservatives want to give the govt even more power over the economy.
MarkTheGreat on February 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM
The fat czar is funded by Big Chicken? This ain’t right.
The big Chicken lobby is at it again.
seven on February 18, 2010 at 8:53 AM
Central planning makes a decision. Then they instruct a shill programmer to write a computor model that in retrospective supports the mandate.
seven on February 18, 2010 at 8:54 AM
Slublog,
OK, I’m no fan of regulation, but it is unfair to lump fisheries or widlife management decisions into the same category as climate modeling. This is essentially a topic that is in my professional back yard, so forgive me if I get too lengthy. I don’t think there is a way I can post the article, but this study is typical of the kind of work involved in trying to figure out what is going on with a fish stock. Fish like herring lay hundreds of millions of eggs annually, with a survival of these eggs to maturity that would be best described as abysmal. Bad recruitment years have a large impact on the stock, and there is no good way to predict into the future based on what has occured in the past, which is what the annual harvest limits are trying to do.
Population ecology is not an exact science, and no regulatory action for fisheries management is ever in the 95% confidence interval that we as scientists or citizens would like to see used. Unlike the premise of crushliberalism’s post, there is a very clear relationship between harvest and commercial extinction. If you look at the North Atlantic cod, there is a clear pattern where overfishing has destroyed the stock. They’re not all gone, but you have to search long and hard for them. That is why you don’t have cod fillets in boxes of Morton’s fish fillets any more. You can’t harvest them in an economical way.
So it is unfortunate for the small town to have lost the jobs today. Unfortunately, business based on harvesting wildlife has a natural ebb and flow in concert with the population. It is also unfortunately the case that fisherman do not understand the fact that actions such as reduction in harvest and closures are trying to boost future years potential stock.
There are too many factors that the general public is completely unaware of to try to explain in this kind of format, but I would like to provide at least one example for those who view this kind of decision as inherently evil…
The fecundity and survival of young is not equal among the eggs produced by all females. For many species of fish, the older the female, the more successful the eggs produced. This is not comletely understood for all species, but is believed to be relative to the amount of yolk that is packed into each egg, with younger fish being less successful, and having less available resource to pack into each egg. Closures, such as the red snapper, are targeting the standing stock of females. If you look at records in the 50s and 60s, the red snappers were MUCH larger and inherently much older. The closure isn’t due to a complete lack of fish. (That would be an extinction risk by the way.) The closure is based on the trends that are evident over decades, and are attempting build up the breeding stock to allow your grandchildren to go fishing for red snapper. Figure 5 on page 7 in the next link shows you the relationship that is causing the majority of the concern. LINK to Red Snapper Stock Assessment Review
I’ll stop there before I start trying to get into the equations.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 9:08 AM
My computer model shows that the federal government has expanded too much to be maintained under current conditions. So, I and a panel of leading economists and scientists have decided to cut the size of the federal government by 70%, except for defense. We are calling the graph produced by the model, the “Grab your ankles” graph.
TQM38a on February 18, 2010 at 9:12 AM
I should have googled this before I hit send.
This is a very simple way of explaining the stock problem with snappers…
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM
To add to your point, there is no benefit to manufacturing data as was done in the climate models. If someone would like to point to an industry that benefits from limits on herring fishing please do so.
jdkchem on February 18, 2010 at 9:31 AM
I am so tired of stories that say the federal government did this or that. I want names. Who is the director of the office that made these regulations? We have rules being made by bureaucrats that are fait accompli by the time an appointed official signs off.
aloysiusmiller on February 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM
I’m no tree hugger or PETA freak by any means…but the Grand Banks used to be a mecca for cod fishing. Now there are no cod, and attempts to bring the population back have failed abysmally. I gotta say the economic impact will suck (I love me some herring and lobster) but I’d like to still be able to eat herring 30 years from now. Management now is better than no herring later.
quikstrike98 on February 18, 2010 at 10:04 AM
The federal government is doing similar damage to Florida communities, but via reverse logic. They’ve arbitrarily closed recreational fishing of popular sport species under the guise of protecting the commercial harvest. However, the recreational activity generates orders of magnitude greater ecomomic impact than the commercial operations.
BadDogMN on February 18, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Which species?
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Here are a couple of benefits/beneficiaries for saying Red Snapper is in collapse.
1. MONEY – Those who are contracted to do the studies won’t get funding next year if they produce a study that says everything is just rosy. However, if they produce a study that says things are turning south, they’ll get money to monitor. If they say things are off the tracks, they’ll get money to “understand” why and determine ways to “manage the crisis”.
2. There are PLENTY of industries that compete with the herring industry. The chicken and bone meal industries for 2. There are alot of other species specific industries that would love to have some of the herring pie.
I’m not saying that herring catch might not need to be adjusted. However, I find the degree of certainty that scientists are placing in their computer models to be completely unfounded.
To much science is being done in computer models. Computer models do NOT replace experimentation, empirical results and surveys, yet computer modeling with flashy powerpoints and animations gets researchers the cash.
I’ve had discussions with biologists who will swear to within an inch of their life that Red Snapper are a threatened species in the Gulf of Mexico, yet they’ve NEVER seen the Gulf, they’ve never been on a commercial or recreational fishing boat in the gulf, they’ve never dived in snapper habitat, yet they’ll teach it and test it and claim the science is settled, because they have a powerpoint and a computer model.
This chicken little the sky is falling science has to stop.
The “data” on Red Snapper is largely based on declining catch numbers, YET, no correlation in the data is made to account for the economic impact of imported and farmed fish driving fishermen out of the market and therefore lowering total catch. It simply wasn’t possible to import the quantity fish we do today in the 1950s (snapper) so domestic fishing was a stronger industry with more fisherman in more places on more days. Today the number of commercial snapper fishermen is less than a quarter of what it was in the 50′s when it was much much easier to get a commercial license and make money fishing.
The effect on landings from imported and farmed fish CANNOT be ignored. Where restaurants, retailers and processors NEEDED a strong domestic catch of wild white flake fish in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s, now they can rely on commercial aquaculture and mariculture for lest cost. Without the markets on shore supporting their catch, fishermen cut back on the numbers of fish they take to keep what is brought in at a price that can support their business. There is NO benefit for a Snapper fisherman to just go out and blindly catch as much as they can anymore, they’d collapse the market price if they did. Most commercial fisherman for species like snapper have a target catch for the trip that is “sold” before they leave the house in the AM to go fishing. If they pull out more, they have to invest more to sell the fish at a smaller price. Fishermen aren’t stupid.
Government interference, regulation, costs and pressure from importers is a factor NEVER put in these studies.
From the document linked above :
ILLUSIONS OF PLENTY
Fishermen and scientific research confirm there are more red snapper today than in the recent past. But the rise is due to a short-lived burst in reproduction, and it doesn’t mean the population is healthy. From 1998 to 2000, the fish multiplied rapidly due to unknown environmental factors. Now they have grown. But if killed at current fishing rates, the fish will not breed enough to boost future generations.
Some observations:
1. CONFIRMED more fish now than in previous surveys (HIDE THE INCREASE)
2. Higher CONFIRMED Reproductive rates are explained away with “I dunno why but it doesn’t change our theory” (More snow is proof of global warming)
3. Lower ESTIMATED Reproductive rates in the past are taken as PROOF of collapse. (Less snow is proof of global warming)
4. Save the Snapper. IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN
5. The science is settled. Despite evidence to the contrary.
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Doh, should have read Red Snapper/Herring in the first sentence.
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 11:12 AM
TRICKLE UP POVERTY
badpenny on February 18, 2010 at 11:28 AM
They might go down because fewer and fewer of us will have to drive to work.
jpmn on February 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Jason,
Outstanding rebuttal, sir. The data on red snapper is flawed, and no government bureaucrat is going to listen to people like you who can thoughtfully explain HOW their data is flawed.
crushliberalism on February 18, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Jason,
I’m not some weepy eyed, do it for the children type of person. I’m a biologist, who thinks fish are food, really tasty, and worth keeping around. I’m not afraid of the math, so this is an area I have in my background, and with all due respect, you don’t have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
Those who do age and growth work on fish species, which is the fundamental backbone in stock assessments, have no vested interest in the outcome of that work, and future funding is only tied to the continued efforts to monitor the status and manage the fisheries stocks. If the catch decision was to double the previous year, it still doesn’t change the need for the stock monitoring and the work continues to be funded. There is plenty of opportunity to try to figure out why a stock may be doing well, and the funding streams for this kind of research never dry up. In other words your first premise about money is absolutely false. (Case in point, look at research that has been done on why there was success with the management of the striped bass fishery, not to mention that the age and growth work still goes on for striped bass)
This is no different than the hunting regulations that insure there is a healthy population of deer for hunting. Without some level of oversight, the natural tendency of humans is to determine based upon their own eyes that there is plenty of prey and there is no need for conservation. i.e. ever heard of the passenger pigeon? No one understood that without millions of birds in the wild stock, the population was unsustainable. So that species is now extinct because everyone who hunted them felt that there were plenty and took as many as they wished. PREVENTING THAT circumstance is the purpose of management.
To be honest, the management of fish is more political than science based, so from a management perspective, it is far easier to appease the economic pressure instead of trying to strike that delicate balance of conserving the species and conserving the economic success of those who depend on a species. Again, this is not in accordance with your premise.
Your premise that the modeling is the only component in the decision is also false. Examine the first two links in my earlier post. These are the kinds of observations that provide the model inputs. The models are not new. The Ricker stock model was first derived by hand in 1954. The von Bertalanffy growth model was first derived in 1938. There is an entire discipline in fisheries that has expanded and refined modeling of this for decades. Again, this is in direct contradiction to your premise that these decisions are based on models in absence of other information.
There is a natural human tendency to use a frame of reference that is only defined by their experiences. (And somehow you perceive this as the correct thing?) If you took a cod fishing Basque from the 1700’s and time warped him to go cod fishing off the grand banks in 1945, he would have been shocked to have seen so few scrawny fish caught. A fisherman from 1945 would have had the same experience in 1980.
Unlike many animals, fish have a very definitive aging method, using the largest of the 3 otoliths. All you have to do is look at the age distribution for red snappers from today vs 1950 to see the profound problem. (Google search: age growth and stock estimation) Unfortunately, just because there are more fish today relative to 5 years ago, but far fewer than 50 years ago, that doesn’t mean there is enough to fish at will and sustain the populatin. I would suggest seeing what I wrote about all female fish not being equal above, but you took academic honesty as some kind of hiding activity in your concluding observations, so there is some kind of profound lack of understanding you have for basic ecology. So lets try this.
If you take any animal before they reach optimum reproductive capacity, your population declines. Lets take a small country by area, say Japan, as a mental image for a fish stock that has not been, but is about to be fished. Japan has about the same generation time and ages of maturity as any human population, so the reproductive age is from 13 ish to the mid 40s and about a 30 year generation time, with lots of individuals of all ages. Now “fishing” begins, and the larger “fish” are kept for consumption. These are reproductive members, but you can guess the effect. The average age of the population would start to get younger and younger as long as removal in greater than the numbers produced. Introduce a selective netting that allows smaller individuals to pass through but retains the larger “fish”, and what happens? The tendency is to get smaller and younger because removal starts to significantly outstrip the ability to reproduce. What happens when the numbers caught starts to decrease? The gear decrease to the size to improve the catch. What happens when this happens to the point where all remaining “fish” in japan are 9 or less? How many young are going to be produced? It makes no difference if you are talking about a fish, pigeon, deer, or people. Population dynamics are sensible. The equations look frightening if you aren’t used to looking at equations, but unlike the climate models, you can make sense of them.
You may not like the snapper decision in Florida, but it isn’t one that was made lightly, has hidden data, or with sinister intention.
I would highly encourage you to pick up a book or two on population ecology, but in the absence of that, try to think through what you’re saying.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Examine the difference in catch at age vs absoulte catch. That is the key difference between the management decision and the argument Jason presents. That is what I was trying to illustrate with the mental exercise.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM
This was only linked because it helps illustrate the point about age of the female. This is obviously a biased source, and I thought that would be obvious. Upon consideration of this, it does explain some of Jason’s tone, but not the content.
Examine the stock assessment review, it is only 8 pages, and is very concise as to what the flaws are in the assessment and what improvements are needed to improve accuracy. Unless you have access to journals the other links in my first post will only provide you the abstracts.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Gee, ya think?
crushliberalism on February 18, 2010 at 2:28 PM
I’ve examined those documents you posted and the link from PEW long before you brought them here.
There are plenty of fabulous scientists doing good work out there. BUT. . . as YOU say:
So screw the fishermen, screw honest management, let’s appease, and make political policy for it’s own ends rather than balance conservation and economics. . . Oh yeah, and continue to pay the scientists. Why even bother with the science if it’s not going to used to craft SOUND AND APPROPRIATE policy.
I have other contentions with BAD science created solely to reinforce those political policy positions.
As for your Cod fisherman. . . BS! For every fisherman you bring forward in time amazed at the scrawny fish, I’ll bring another one forward in time and show him bountiful catches that will amaze him as well.
For every 1700′s Cod landing station record that you show me with record landings I’ll show you another 1700′s Cod landing station where the inhabitants fell into starvation in periods of decline.
Of course if we had the miraculous powers you as a “scientist” are basing your argument on, we’d not be worried about Herring or Snapper, we’d just go back in time and bring them forward with us in our Klingon Warbird with Scotty’s transparent aluminum, wouldn’t we.
I understand you’re defending your science, and that is FINE, if you’re just doing that. But when AS YOU ADMIT, these things become political, which they have, you need to also admit that your data and your conclusions are being corrupted for political ends.
Additionally, if you don’t admit, right now, that the economics and supply and demand and aquaculture and importation don’t play into this, then I call you a hack.
The computer models that the bans and regs are being made on DO NOT account for market pressures on catch size, don’t take into account commerical practices changing over time, dont’ account for importation, or fewer fishmen out there, or aquaculture. Yet once again we find datashopped models being used to create policy and YES, that datashopping DOES keep you in business as a scientist.
As far as fish age, why don’t you go fishing sometime with a good charter fisherman, and he’ll pull you up old fish all day every day if he knows his trade. Your surveys of catch come largely from commercial fisherman, who are very much “farming” the sea. They have their quads and sections and even rows that they ply day in and day out rotating among sections like farmers rotate crops. Old fish learn by surviving and populations adjust to the areas that commercial fishermen hit day in and day out, so YEAH, you’ll see younger fish in landings.
Your 1700′s cod fishermen didn’t have to meet orders, and they’d go out and stay out as long as they could to get the biggest and best fish they could. Today’s commercial cod boats, don’t have the time or inclination to do that, they go out on schedule, fish their sets, and return on schedule to fill the orders they had when they left.
You were doing good until your link to PEW, which exposed your positions for what they are, mostly political and hiding behind some science.
I have NO PROBLEM with doing the science and getting hard data, but I have a BIG problem with incomplete computer models and corrupted biased data being used for what you admit are LARGELY POLITICAL DECISIONS BASED ON POLITICAL ENDS.
You’ve done more harm to your scientific cred here than you’ve helped I think.
Other commenters, please forgive me for repeating.
You offered up a document for support that basically said:
1. CONFIRMED more fish now than in previous surveys (HIDE THE INCREASE)
2. Higher CONFIRMED Reproductive rates are explained away with “I dunno why but it doesn’t change our theory” (More snow is proof of global warming)
3. Lower ESTIMATED Reproductive rates in the past are taken as PROOF of collapse. (Less snow is proof of global warming)
4. Save the Snapper. IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN
5. The science is settled. Despite evidence to the contrary.
As for your condescension about my access to data, or knowledge of the science:
I’ll take fallacious appeal to authority for 200 Alex.
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 2:32 PM
First lemme address your condescension regarding my knowledge of the science and access to the jornals:
“I’ll take fallacious appeal to authority for 200 Alex.”
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Sorry, I thought the spam filter nixed my first comment for “Screw the Fishermen”, so I was starting a repost.
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 3:07 PM
It dawned on me that you might feel that way as I pondered what you stated, which is why at
I acknowledged that it was probably what had caused your angst. Essentially it is still what has you up in arms, so let’s look at the reality of what I actually was saying.
OK, lets start with the linked material
Herring stock-recruitment relationships and recruitment patterns in the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific oceans – in the journal Fisheries Research.
Some patterns of age and geographical variation in fish fecundity – in the journal Biology Bulletin.
(These are subscription based, unless you are willing to purchase the individual article. If you interpret the simple statement of this as condescending, so be it, none was intended. This is just support for the science behind this part of the process)
The Red Snapper stock assessment review by Dr. Hester.
And the link I added later from the Pew group.
The Pew link is biased, as I acknowledged earlier, and I only provided the link because it had a different way of visualizing the difference in the reproductive success. That is the only reason I even added the link, but apparently that was a confusing approach.
Since only the last two are specific to snapper, the conclusions that are purported to have come from my linked material would have to come from one of these. The biased link appears to be what is flavoring your discussion, because there is no point in the SAR that would support your contention. Quoting directly from the discussion at the end…
What this says is that the data is screwy, but that the lack of change in the indices could indicate that the population is not changing, and no change in fishing regulation is warranted. Dr. Hester goes on to blast other portions of this process. Particularly illustrative of this are the final sentences…
None of this sounds like your restated set of conclusions. In fact, I’m not even clear on where the conclusions come from. The little propaganda piece from Pew doesn’t really say those things either. It tries to paint a picture that essentially points toward alarming declines in population levels, alarming bycatch, and does mention the rise in reproduction between 1998 to 2000, but draws no real conclusions from that. So where do these conclusions come from?
Reproductive rates change little from one year to the next, since this is based on egg production in the females, which is more or less related to the amount of space available in the body cavity and the size of the ovaries. The fecundity of older females is greater, particularly in the Lutjanids, which has some effect on overall reproductive rate, but that isn’t your argument, which is that there have been a few years with higher reproductive rates. Survivorship does vary from year to year since this is the component that is influenced by the environment. If you look at the SAR, there is no mention of an increased reproduction, but it does appear in the Pew link. Again, I only added this link because it does a simple but effective job of illustrating the difference in fitness with older fish. (The rest of it is very biased and useless for meaningful discussion.)
All regulatory decisions have a political component, and there are multiple laws that must be adhered to, such as the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act for example, which muddy the water on the science basis upon which these decisions are made. Essentially, the standard is that a decision must be based on the best available science, even if the best available is complete garbage. Using the precautionary principle and figures such as figure 5 on page 7 of the SAR, a regulator will take the conservative route. Right or wrong in any given situation, this is the process. The intersection of science and law is a very strange place, and a lot of bad laws are on the books as Dr. Hester stated so eloquently in the last sentence of the SAR.
I fail to see any relevance between your statements along the lines of the aquaculture and imports and the red snapper discussion I’m trying to have with you. Economic considerations are folded into the regulatory process; it is required under the law.
Now, you did irritate me. The premises of your arguments are not supported by your statements. Arguments with faulty premises tend to lead one to conclude there is a lack of understanding of the subject at hand. This is so common with respect to understanding regulations that stem from population dynamics it is a very sore spot. Your charge of condescending tone there is likely true, for which I apologize.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM
(These are subscription based, unless you are willing to purchase the individual article. If you interpret the simple statement of this as condescending, so be it, none was intended. This is just support for the science behind this part of the process)
IF you were really concerned with my access to information, which you aren’t, you could use any number of publicly accessible sources that have arisen based upon these articles. Simply highlight some text in your subscription source article, pop it into google and away you go.
However, as I’ve stated, I’ve already read both. . . that isn’t stopping your fallacious appeal to authority though, is it.
B right back.
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Again with the unsupported and faulty premises.
The premise of that statement is that I’ve implied I have some kind of authority. Where have I stated that I have some kind of absolute authority and should be believed on that basis alone.
Use your google skills and tell me what have I stated that is false.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Familiarity with the subject or fallacious appeal to authority is ultimately a decision you’ll have to make. Google will help, but I would recommend picking up Haddon’s book Modeling and Quantitative Methods in Fisheries. It uses Excel exercises that really help in understanding these models and how they work.
Its been fun, but I have to head home. I might have the time to check back later.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Oh, before I forget, Haddon’s example boxes are on the web. They may help, but there isn’t any real explanation of things like the probability distributions in one of the chapters unless you look at the text.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM
Your sources and your statements are highly contradictory and your statement flies in the face of the historical record.
Reproductive rates can and do change, sometimes greatly, in many species, including Lutjanidae. You’ve admitted this on one hand and dismissed it with the other. See your statement quoted above and the statement from your sources on the rates from 98 to 00. You can’t have your cake. . . .you know the rest.
Here’s the problem. The laws and policies being made are bad, they aren’t supported by the good science you speak of, but rather the bad science you accept. You admit this.
What is happening, is the small amount of good science is being overshadowed by the large about of flashy/disco pseudo science in faulty computer models, datashopping and political bias.
Your data is largely based on commercial catch, there is some sampling, and some records being collected by recreational fishermen. With commercial catch, your models aren’t taking into account the changes in the industry. It’s not “every fisherman for himself” anymore to go out and get the biggest catch of the biggest fish. In fact, in the case of the snapper fishery, the BIG BIG fish aren’t the object of the game, they aren’t needed in the marketplace anymore. Yeah, the guys on the boat love them and they make nice displays for retailers every now and then, but MASS isn’t the object for Red Snapper any more. It’s not about the kilos, it’s about the right size for IQF fillet or fresh retail. The commercial fishermen don’t like to take a bunch of 5 lb.+ fish because they aren’t as desirable to the market as the 2-4 lb fish are.
This change in the marketplace is NOT reflected in your models. Neither is the reduction in demand for domestic Red Snapper because of the availability of imported wild fish and aquaculture fish from a variety of source.
The models don’t take into account the changes in HOW commerical fishermen are going about their trade. A first or second year captain for an outfit like Abrams or Ambros might never get away from the same 20 sq. miles of water all year as they plan their sets in advance and run them at times dictated by their orders. You’re not getting data from areas that were fished historically except sporadically and unreliably from recreational fishermen.
These are horrific problems for your models and the ones used in the articles and which the regulations are being based.
This is akin to leaving water vapor out of climate models. It’s akin to the claim that blondes will disappear in 200 years because of a recessive gene. Extrapolating these sky is falling, the fishery is collapsing stories from flawed and incomplete datasets filled in by computer models which can’t accurately predict past history is a practice the scientific community needs to start standing up against AND LOUDLY.
As a scientist, you should find this statement utterly repulsive. Instead, you excuse it for what in what I can only interpret as you feeling like “it has to be done” to get to some greater (perceived) good. This is very similar to the climate change science falling apart all around us. The “scientists” are datashopping garbage data and cherry-picking the sets that support their hypothesis.
YOU ARE ADMITTING THE SAME THING.
It’s become very very easy for scientists in the computer age to use the machines as a crutch for real work in the field, it’s become too easy to collect information without verification and without understanding the harvest methods (literally) for the data. They excuse the faults in the data because they can cite a source (as you did) and then just cherry-pick the bits they want from that source (as you did also) to make what are indeed faulty premises and equally faulty conclusions.
AS for my premises being faulty. I’m not trying to make a case there Mr. Marine_Bio, I’m pointing out the problems with yours. My conclusions about the health of populations hasn’t been stated, but I’ve shown where your conclusions are drawn on faulty data.
Ironically, you’ve admitted repeatedly that you understand the problems with some of your data, and excuse it. Other times you excuse the problems with your data by redirection.
Let us not forget that you’ve also drawn conclusions based on what you think you could accomplish with your time machine, and I think I can show very easily that if I get access to your time machine, I can show you some 1700′s fishermen who would be gobsmacked by the catch we get today.
If it’s wrong, and you’re a scientist, you should be out in front of the band shouting to the heavens that it’s wrong, not trying to sugar-coat it or excuse it as part of the process so you can get to your next round of funding.
Supporting the destruction of industries and people’s lives (as you are doing) based on what you admit is garbage science says to me that you are not much of a scientist. It makes you a hack chasing the political gravy train.
As I said before, the old fish are out there, they just aren’t where people are farming the ocean and pleasure boats, scuba divers and sport-fishers have their fun. You’re not going to find the big fish in the commercial landings, especially the landings of the dedicated snapper fishermen. You won’t find it in the bycatch of the trawlers because the fish have learned by 3 or 4 years to get the hell out when the nets come through. BUT. . . go spend some time with the guys who target Black Grouper or spend some money and get a guide to show you where big fish are. You aren’t going to find the big old fish by watching the guys who want the small young fish.
Clean up the data that you admit is largely garbage. Start making complete surveys and take into account the forces that come to bear on the harvesters to affect their decisions on what to catch and where to fish. I have a strong suspicion that you don’t understand much about fish outside of the lab and you have even less of an understanding about the life, lives and work of fishermen and what these “garbage science policies” (your admission) does to them.
Further, I don’t think you care. . . about the junk science you defend or the fishermen you advocate hurting based on it.
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Now you’re just being intellectually dishonest. I never said you were the authority, I said you were appealing to an authority. Which you are, and in a faulty manner. By saying things like:
X says this, but I know you can’t get to X, so you have to accept what my conclusions are, is an appeal to authority, it’s a faulty argument.
Trying to defend your fallacious appeal to authority by creating a strawman, only compounds your error.
Oh, no, I don’t have to make it. You did it, you made the decision for me. I’m familiar with the subject. I also suggest that you are too. Our difference is that I can recognize where the science is flawed and discount it appropriately. You on the other hand recognize where the science is flawed and still elevate it to support policy.
I’m familiar with the book and I appreciate the spreadsheets it provides. Unfortunately that means nothing when the data going into the model is garbage and it means nothing if you don’t square the contemporary model with historical data. In other words, if your model can’t predict what will happen in ’60 if you feed it the data from ’40 – ’59, then you shouldn’t rely on the model to make declarations about what will happen in ’10 if you feed it the data from ’90 – ’09.
Until the scientific community starts being honest about the nature of the data they are feeding into these things and squaring the contemporary data and harvest techniques and market pressures with the historical data and harvest techniques and market pressures, you’ll continue to get garbage data out.
You’re comparing productivity of feedlot ranching to the productivity of grassfed pasture raised cattle. That’s dishonest, the pasture numbers are always going to be lower than the feedlot. Just like the “drag the big net” fishermen of the past are always going to have the advantage over the circle hook guys of today.
If your model doesn’t take this and the other things I’ve mentioned into account, it’s junk.
Jason Coleman on February 18, 2010 at 6:31 PM
OK,
Now we’re getting somewhere. I’ll address the action piece first, and may not have time to address the reproductive rate until tomorrow.
There is a statutory requirement to do something for those species that fall under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as well as the Sustainable Fisheries Act. This requirement is known to be in conflict with the timelines required for research.
So, what is the scientific community supposed to do? Rail at congress to change the law? How likely is that to have a good outcome?
There is no silence on the issue from the scientific community. Just look at what was written in the SAR. I would describe that as a scathing rebuke of the situation. National Marine Fisheries is routinely sued on these kinds of regulations, but the statute is clear. So, what is the scientific community supposed to do? Rail at congress to change the law? How likely is that to have any success, particularly in a Dem controlled congress?
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Doh. Sorry for the duplication.
I’m not used to posting with Opera.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 8:25 PM
How are you defining reproductive rate?
In terms of human population, the simplest model is:
Population at future time = Number today + births + deaths + immigration + emigration.
For fish, there is no way to estimate the equivalent of births in a meaningful way. Some models use a very simple intrinsic rate of increase, r.
In that case,
r = number hatched – early survival loss – natural mortality – other factors like fishing mortality.
r, as I was describing it is using the estimated number of eggs per spawner. This is tied to the mean body mass of the female and in a stable population that is under fishing pressure, constant, within the confines of natural stochasticity.
That proxy is independent of commercial or recreational fisheries. That is why I like it.
Gotta go.
Marine_Bio on February 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Ok, here’s the problem with r.
You don’t know the number hatched. It’s estimated on the estimated size of the fish. You don’t know the size of the fish, except through incomplete landing data, unreliable data from recreational fishermen and inadequate sampling data.
That’s 3 estimates so far which are known to be less than accurate.
Early survival loss, another unknown, estimated from samples that aren’t representative and largely incomplete. Samples and surveys that are decreasing in number and accuracy with every year as more and more reliance is given to computer models.
Natural mortality – another unknown (estimate known to be less than accurate.)
Fishing mortality – this is probably the hardest number you have and even it is very suspect.
5 soft numbers, all of which are known to be such.
Notice the bolded part. This is where scientists REFUSE to recognize that fishing pressure is NOT universal upon all populations, in fact, the geographic areas under fishing pressure has shrunk DRAMATICALLY since the high points (of record keeping) in the 2 decades after WW2. The fleet size of snapper fishermen has shrunk considerably, this is not recognized in the models. The effectiveness of the fleet has been reduced dramatically by forcing larger and larger net openings, then removing nets altogether, by forcing greater and greater distances between hooks, then moving to the circle hooks of today.
All of these factors have an impact on the numbers of fish caught, and therefore on the numbers you can use to put into your model. BUT. . . none of these reductions in fleet efficiency are put into the models used to make policy. In fact, the scientific community that’s making recommendations emphatically denies that these factors exist much less have a reduction in the efficiency of the fleet.
Without these factors honestly represented in the models, the models are falsehoods, just as it’s a falsehood to put an infinitely dense atmosphere in climate models.
Market pressure is also not included in the models, it’s assumed by the models that demand is on a steadily upward curve, but it’s not. Many outlets for the domestic snapper catch have dried up, processors are not paying $2.5 a lb for domestic Reds when they can buy Domestic Lane or Yellowtail for under 2 or imported rubys and others for less than a buck.
When the market shrinks, the supply shrinks to meet it. Snapper specific fishermen either leave the business, move to other species or go ex-pat and fish other waters. The processors also have switched to aquaculture fish for a lower cost further depressing demand, and further depressing the numbers of snapper fishermen on the water.
All of this is left out of the models presented to Congress, YOU KNOW THIS TO BE A FACT. The models only work for you if you assume there is universal fishing pressure, and the models only work if demand is high.
Demand is not high (like it was) and there is not universal fishing pressure, vast areas of American Southern Atlantic waters haven’t seen fishing pressure in decades, and the pressure that does come is sporadic and light at best. It’s just not worth it to snapper fishermen to go further out, or away from home port to catch fish that aren’t what they need when they know they can stay close to home and find the small 2-4 lb fish that the fresh market and IQF fillet market wants.
What should you do as a scientist. You should SCREAM. You should denounce those that are putting out garbage science and you should encourage others in your field to denounce them as well. You have the power to publish the real data, you have the ability to testify to the truth rather than what the politicians want to hear.
BUT MOST OF ALL, you shouldn’t excuse, appease or accept what you KNOW (and have admitted) is garbage science. By excusing, appeasing and accepting this garbage you are creating just another Piltdown Man, or perhaps more accurately, creating another Barnum’s Siren of the Sea.
Don’t give policymakers garbage science because they demand you do, that isn’t being a scientist, it’s being a stooge when you excuse, appease and accept the false data. It’s just as bad as Vatican astronomers who knew Galileo was right but remained silent and did there own little part to extend the dark ages.
You should also reject the models that are based on faulty numbers, just because it’s easier to get funding for new computers to run your little animations doesn’t mean that the models replace the field work that hard science demands. Yeah, it’s easier for you to get money for computer cycles than it is to get survey money, but you know as well as I do that that is intentional to keep the science “controllable” and on message. If you don’t know this, then you’re a dupe, willfully ignorant of the truth which is right in front of you.
Garbage in, garbage out, the models are based on flawed numbers and you know it. If you don’t then you’re pretty much a failure as a scientist.
As I said before, go where the fishermen aren’t and survey the fish, you’ll find that they are much much larger than you or your models expect. Don’t give the garbage science peddlers air to breathe and clean up the APPEASEMENT so rampant in your peer review process.
When you start admitting the truth and stop accepting the garbage, we’ll get along fine. As long as you keep propping up inaccurate data and accepting known falsehoods, I’ll treat you just like the climate criminals of the CRU. Don’t settle for searching through the trash to find a piece of dung to polish up and present, go out and get the real numbers like real scientists do and leave the computer simulations behind like the toys they are.
Jason Coleman on February 19, 2010 at 12:16 AM
Jason,
(side note) Why did you shift to peer review towards the end of your last post? Aside from being completely irrelevant, this switching of argument is part of why I got frustrated in my earlier response.
Back on topic. Your premise continues to be false. Your premise is that this is a willful omission, and there is a perpetuation of misinformation. The uncertainties in the models are clearly stated up front.
This is not unique to population dynamics. Drill down into evolution, plate tectonics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, or cell theory. There are many assumptions that are used because they work. Do they describe exactly what is going on in their respective areas? Are they perfect? No… some are better than others, but you can get the job done with some degree of confidence that you at least have some idea of what is happening, given your assumptions.
One of the pieces that you seem to be assuming is that the commercial stock numbers are driving the population estimation model. It is not. If you look at the age distributions and the stock recruit models, these are independent of the commercial catch. They are sensitive to the sample, so the larger the sample, the better. Much of the sample comes from commercial harvest, because from an experimental perspective, it is reproducible and consistent, whereas rec fishing is not. Your focus also seems to be centered on the surplus biomass models which are tricky, and are used in the management process, but these are not used exclusively or in isolation. These decisions are made looking at the suite of information, and taking the precautionary approach.
The difference between the two of us is that I’m willing to use a shotgun because I know it will probably hit the target, and not willing to pull a Don Quixote for an ideal that is not feasible. You seem to believe that there is some kind of absolute stock estimation that is possible, given enough money, time and effort. I wish you luck with that. It isn’t even possible for humans to have an accurate population count, and you can ask questions.
Unless you physically are present with every fish, at every moment of their life, it is not possible to do what you wish. There have been some very computationally intensive efforts to try to do this sort of thing with cod, but ultimately the problem is that the survivorship of larval fish is so small that there is no way to stochastically make the model work. If you can figure out a way to accurately and reproducibly, pull in the factors you feel are more important, more power to you, and I would highly encourage you to do so.
However in the absence of trying to fix the modeling, I would encourage you to research the regulatory process. Congress is aware of issues in the laws. There is no good way to legislate some of the common sense that needs to filter into this process. The best you can do is to lean on your representatives, and keep an eye on rulemaking process and constructively voice your concerns.
Being offensive is not going to get you anywhere in that process though.
Marine_Bio on February 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Minor correction, some of the stock recruit models do try to pull in fishing mortality, so there is that…
Marine_Bio on February 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Jason,
There is also a fair bit of emotion that you obviously have invested in the snapper issue. I do not. The unwarranted closure of a fishery is not a regulation I’m going to get upset over. Eventually the reg will change, and the fish stock will be in better shape for it. You may be inconvenienced for a time, but eventually you will be able to fish again.
Regs that I will get upset over are things like the preposterous allowances that VA makes for the commercial Menhaden fishery. That is a decision that affects a species on a much lower tropic level than lutjanids.
That is the kind of regulatory misconduct that I get worked up over.
Marine_Bio on February 19, 2010 at 11:40 AM
I\’m more upset with what you admit is garbage science being used and willingly accepted by people like you.You\’ve failed to address my points in the problems with your communities models. Where you did address it, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.Quit defending what you admit is garbage science, and we\’ll get along fine.
Wow. . . talk about irrelevant. And you want to criticize me for dancing around. I think you\’re guilty of projection.The models are flawed, you admit it, and then you excuse it. That\’s the problem with \”scientists\” like you. You accept the junk science because it gets you where you think you want it to, yet, you\’re not much different from the clowns at the CRU who use faulty models, ignore inconvenient facts and then try to say that the science is settled.I\’ll have more to say later, but I suggest you try to stop making assumptions about who I am, what I know or what information I have access to and address the problems I\’m pointing out with your models. Try not to continue to contradict yourself within paragraphs, OK, at least give your contradictions an inch or so spacing on the page.
Jason Coleman on February 20, 2010 at 6:38 AM
Jason,
At this point it is evident that you are a complete moron. The obvious point that you missed is that assumptions are made as part of the human existence. Soft numbers are not unusual, and are FREQUENTLY part of the processes. This does not make it junk, it makes it an index that is correct, given the validity of the inputs and assumptions that have been made. Is it perfect? No. Is it possible to make it perfect? No. The fisheries models are supported by very labor intensive research.
For example, you make assumptions when you make your personal budget. You intentionally miss the point I’m making, which is that in science, assumptions must be made as well.
I have not addressed many of your assertions about your problem with the model because your premise is false. For example, reductions in the harvested biomass of red snapper would have the opposite effect on the decision to what you assert. Reductions in wild harvest would indicate that there is more available biomass to harvest for the next year.
Your assertion that the influence of aquaculture has some detrimental effect on the modeling and decision making is so patently ridiculous that I can’t even respond to it.
The major piece that drives the red snapper decision is the age distribution. This has no relationship to commercial harvest changes or aquaculture. This is sensitive to the sample, but statistically, interannual variations are within the variance of the population.
This is why I surmised in the beginning that you don’t have the first clue of what you’re talking about.
Until then, I would recommend working on being less pugnacious and offensive. Also if you think this is so poor, then I invite you to exercise the options available to you as an american citizen…. SUE NMFS.
Marine_Bio on February 21, 2010 at 9:01 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2