OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Letter: Perfectly good fisheries data being ignored
Codfish
©Depositphotos
DFO is currently under fire, from several different fronts, about recent science stock assessment estimates and the subsequent management decisions.
Advertisement
Someone not familiar with the science assessment process might believe the federal Fisheries minister’s recent announcement to conduct cod assessments every year is way of addressing current deficiencies.
It is not!
Conducting full, peer-reviewed, annual assessments used to be a normal occurrence until Ottawa gutted DFO science and management at the regional level. Those annual assessments failed to prevent the cod moratorium in 1992. Simply reverting to an annual assessment process will in no way address current deficiencies.
Critical to the assessment process is the mathematical model that computes biomass. Critical inputs to that model are survey indices and commercial catch. If the model is flawed or if critical inputs are not included, the assessment results will be flawed.
The current model, used to assess northern cod, was developed and accepted during the last few years and it has a striking similarity to the model used to assess 3Ps cod. The only abundance index being used in those models, to estimate biomass, is the DFO research vessel survey indices. The commercial catch, the commercial logbook data and the cod sentinel catch rate indices are not used in the model. They are merely used as additional ancillary information.
Ancillary information carries about as much weight as a piece of tissue paper in a hurricane.
Fish harvesters complete logbooks and commercial landings are monitored and recorded via the dockside monitoring program, but the data is not used. Instead, a computer estimates both the recreational and commercial catch. Why the hell are we using a computer-generated estimate of the commercial catch when the actual numbers are available?
The cod sentinel catch rate index is approximately 20 years long. It is not now used as a model input to help compute biomass. Why?
The mathematical model being used to assess 3Ps cod doesn’t use the commercial catch, nor does it use the cod sentinel index. Fish harvesters have not been able to catch the annual quota (sound familiar?) for a couple of years in 3PS and now all of a sudden there is a big reduction in quota this year. Should we have confidence in the results from a northern cod assessment that is similar to assessments conducted for 3Ps cod?
We are sitting on ancillary data that costs millions of dollars to collect but we are quite satisfied to file it away and ignore it. Why?
I will end this rant by making one last comment. The people who go to work at the DFO building at White Hills in St. John’s are not the problem. I know many of them and they are hardworking, knowledgeable people who care about the assignments they are given. The problem with DFO science and management can be found in Ottawa offices inhabited by the political ignoramuses that are in charge of resources (staffing and finances).
We don’t need a political fix — we need to fix the politics!
Why the hell are we using a computer-generated estimate of the commercial catch when the actual numbers are available?
Advertisement
Harvey Jarvis, concerned citizen
Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s
Codfish
©Depositphotos
DFO is currently under fire, from several different fronts, about recent science stock assessment estimates and the subsequent management decisions.
Advertisement
Someone not familiar with the science assessment process might believe the federal Fisheries minister’s recent announcement to conduct cod assessments every year is way of addressing current deficiencies.
It is not!
Conducting full, peer-reviewed, annual assessments used to be a normal occurrence until Ottawa gutted DFO science and management at the regional level. Those annual assessments failed to prevent the cod moratorium in 1992. Simply reverting to an annual assessment process will in no way address current deficiencies.
Critical to the assessment process is the mathematical model that computes biomass. Critical inputs to that model are survey indices and commercial catch. If the model is flawed or if critical inputs are not included, the assessment results will be flawed.
The current model, used to assess northern cod, was developed and accepted during the last few years and it has a striking similarity to the model used to assess 3Ps cod. The only abundance index being used in those models, to estimate biomass, is the DFO research vessel survey indices. The commercial catch, the commercial logbook data and the cod sentinel catch rate indices are not used in the model. They are merely used as additional ancillary information.
Ancillary information carries about as much weight as a piece of tissue paper in a hurricane.
Fish harvesters complete logbooks and commercial landings are monitored and recorded via the dockside monitoring program, but the data is not used. Instead, a computer estimates both the recreational and commercial catch. Why the hell are we using a computer-generated estimate of the commercial catch when the actual numbers are available?
The cod sentinel catch rate index is approximately 20 years long. It is not now used as a model input to help compute biomass. Why?
The mathematical model being used to assess 3Ps cod doesn’t use the commercial catch, nor does it use the cod sentinel index. Fish harvesters have not been able to catch the annual quota (sound familiar?) for a couple of years in 3PS and now all of a sudden there is a big reduction in quota this year. Should we have confidence in the results from a northern cod assessment that is similar to assessments conducted for 3Ps cod?
We are sitting on ancillary data that costs millions of dollars to collect but we are quite satisfied to file it away and ignore it. Why?
I will end this rant by making one last comment. The people who go to work at the DFO building at White Hills in St. John’s are not the problem. I know many of them and they are hardworking, knowledgeable people who care about the assignments they are given. The problem with DFO science and management can be found in Ottawa offices inhabited by the political ignoramuses that are in charge of resources (staffing and finances).
We don’t need a political fix — we need to fix the politics!
Why the hell are we using a computer-generated estimate of the commercial catch when the actual numbers are available?
Advertisement
Harvey Jarvis, concerned citizen
Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s
