Fisheries science holds
profound ramifications for the future of fish in our lakes, rivers, estuaries
and oceans. In Florida where 31% of people consider themselves anglers, it is
no wonder why everyone has an opinion on how and why fish should be managed. Most
anglers agree that conservation of fish populations is a necessity; the
questions arise in the best way to do that (e.g. regulations) and how
scientists arrive at management decisions. Questions turn to distrust and doubt
when the communication gap between scientists and the public is not
breached.
Fisheries science is prone to
criticism. First, it is not an exact science. Models provide projections and
population estimates. Second, models aren’t well understood by the public (and
I dare say many scientists) due to their complexity. Models often change or are
replaced over time as the science evolves and adapts to include new statistical
theory and methodology. Change, in all aspects of life, can be difficult to
accept. Opaque reasons for change cause anglers to hold fast to old-fashioned
but comfortable management and data collection methods. For example, Catch Per
Unit Effort (CPUE) is a straightforward, traditional measurement of abundance
and is easily understood by scientists and the public. However multiple studies
on collapsing stocks have shown that CPUE may remain high as the population
declines (e.g. Erisman et al. 2011), prompting managers to rely on additional
benchmarks for stock health. The Fishing Rights Association (FRA) lists this
shift as an issue of concern- specifically that stock assessment models are
ignoring standard benchmarks including CPUE. The FRA has gone so far as to hire
their own scientists to prove federal regulators wrong. The CPUE conflict
exemplifies the difficulty of remaining cutting edge in fisheries science yet
retaining the confidence of the public.
