“Secret” Cod Assessment Criticized on Procedure and Content

The so-called updated assessment on Gulf of Maine cod, released on Aug. 1, ignited multiple uproars in the New England fishing industry. The negative results of the update and the proposed emergency action are certain to drop the total allowable catch into closure status and initiate cod spawning area closures. Both of these will spill over into restrictions on harvesting other species in the same areas. What some have described as a cod mortality panic reaction threatens to drag the Maine lobster fishery – a model of good fisheries management – into the problem now that some scientists and council members are calling for the collection of data on the number of cod caught as bycatch in lobster traps.

The controversy over the update has experienced insiders in fisheries science and fishermen crying foul. The means by which the update was conducted, released and reviewed has been described as unprecedented. The update is being referred to as a secret assessment. Marine biologist Dr. Steve Cadrin, at the School for Marine Science and Technology, said that, although the update incorporated new data, it was procedurally wrong.

Russell Brown, Deputy Director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, said the update came about as a result of a project to develop a more streamlined method for delivering stock data to management and the industry. The project involved the development of a template of what a streamlined program might look like, and cod was used for input because there was a lot of available data on cod. In addition, said Brown, cod information was more complex because there were two stock assessment models available. This complexity allowed for two assumptions to be made about natural mortality. The new information included data from trawl surveys, discards and landings in 2012 and 2013.

The updated assessment was released before an independent peer review of the science could be done. Normally, said Cadrin, a peer review is scheduled one year in advance so all consultants, university scientists, experts, etc., will be available in a timely manner. That part of the process was undermined, he said, and over the subsequent month there was a scramble to have a peer review done. But the release of the assessment nullified the relevance of a peer review process, said Cadrin.

Brown said the update was released before peer review because reference points for GOM cod were so low that “we felt obligated to release the results.” The science center contacted council leadership about the results, and arranged to have the council’s Science and Statistical Committee review the assessment.

Critics charged that the lack of a standard peer review undermines the credibility of the update. Brown said there are precedents for SSC peer reviews.

Scientists and fishermen said the NEFSC’s assessment model does not take into consideration the effects of climate change on the oceans. Cadrin said he agreed with biologist and fisherman Captain Dave Goethel, who told the council on Oct. 22 that “ocean circulation patterns, water temperatures and other factors have changed in the last 15 years and they are having important effects on the behavior and mobility of fish stocks.” According to Goethel, NEFSC uses data to assess fish stocks in an ocean environment that no longer exists.

Brown acknowledged climate change has impacted the oceans, and he said environmental changes are affecting fish populations. “But just what those impacts are is up in the air right now,” he said.

Brown said that while scientists work on gauging the impact of environmental factors, it’s also important to respond to an assessment that says populations have fallen to low levels and are not reproducing. “We need to control the sources of mortality we have control over,” he said. And he said hypotheses for the causes of those changes are under study.

Cadrin said, “Failure to account for the effects of these changes to the ocean can account for more problems in the management process.” Some observers say environmental changes may be impacting where and how cod and other species are spawning. This may be a matter of stock movement, rather than mortality, observers say. And, they add, if mortality is not the problem, then real problems, related to climate change, go unaddressed.