Veteran Fisherman Assesses
Council Failures
by Mike Crowe
Fisherman, biologist, New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) member and veteran of 46 years in the fishing industry, David Goethel speaks with authority. His view of the fisheries management process differs from most others who consider themselves familiar with the council process and it’s track record.
Goethel attended the very first fisheries management meeting to discuss Amendment 1 during a blizzard in 1978. We’re now on Amendment 18, 35 years later and most fishermen would agree worse off. Goethel has fished since 1967. He has said fishing is what he’s always wanted to do and what he still wants to do. Through these 46 years in fishing he has been observing it through the eyes of a fisherman and as a trained biologist with a degree from Boston University. He has also taken on the responsibility of representing fishermen’s interests as an active member of the New England Fisheries Management Council.
Goethel speaks from broad experience and an authority few if any others on the council can credibly claim to equal. He has said the management process has been “massively fouled up since he first experienced it back in 1967.” Fishermen who spoke at the January 30th council meeting on cod quota cuts would likely agree.
“Most people at the council level are not biologists. Council members receive a two-hour briefing on science issues. Therefore council members are out of their element in attempting to challenge scientists on the Council with Phds,” said Goethel.
Goethel’s positions are supported by the opinions of noted scientists and most fishermen who have followed the management process over the years. Among them is Brian Rothschild, Phd, who’s decades of research as a marine biologist include recognition and awards from Harvard University, the Scripps Institute, The American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute and others. Rothshield is a heavy hitter who can and does go up against the Northeast Fishery Science Center Phds.
The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NFSC) assesses the data collected by annual trawl surveys taken in the Gulf of Maine. Goethel has said that he believes the scientists at the center believe in the stock assessments, but the problem is that they run data through very complex mathematical computer models. “They are competent in the building and use of these very abstract models, but very removed from the reality of what is happening in the water. These models incorporate too little natural history,” said Goethel.
There has long been criticism of the way scientists collect trawl data on there fishing trip trawl surveys as well. This is the data that is run through the mathematical models which turn out information management uses to guide changes to fishing regulations, quota, and ultimately who fishes.
It is easy to see the process as the blind (faulty trawl data) leading the blind (scientists removed from reality while immersed in an abstract mathematical digital world). Goethel sees management imposing catch limits and accountability measures while “there is no such accountability required of the scientists or the managers. There is no acknowledgement that they messed up,” said Goethel.
He is also critical of the huge bureaucracy that is the National Marine Fisheries Service has become. “More employees than fishermen,” said Goethel. He recalled the days when it was 30 people working out of a trailer in Gloucester. Today it is in a multi- million dollar building there with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars. That bureaucratic and financial monolith carries a lot of clout by way of “go along to get along policies” and the near impossibility of bucking the system.
As an example of the abstract reality of the NFSC Goethel noted the use of reference points and regimes extracted from the assessment. This, like other esoteric science, is complicated enough to go over the heads of a lot of those on the council and about everyone else in the room at a council meeting.
Reference points are used to derive catch limits. Goethel said the recent reference point set by the NFSC is incorrect and an example of the effects of the NFSC operating in the abstract. Goethel cites the failure to consider the effects of current higher bottom water temperatures on the regime, as an example. He referred to records kept on these temperatures since the early 1800’s and the few times in that period when the reference point could have been set that high. But no one is listening, because they don’t have to, said Goethel.
His experience with an unresponsive NMFS, and NEFMC has been to conclude that the national goal of the fishery service is to “end overfishing,” as they have been directed to by the Magnuson Stevens Act, by ending fishing. “They want to end over fishing by getting rid of fishermen,” he said.