Spotted Seatrout Stock Assessment, Questioning the Science is More Than Mere Defiance
In last week’s CCA newsletter, they made the following statement, “While some groups may question the science behind whether the stock is truly experiencing overfishing, there can be little argument that there has been increased pressure on Spotted Seatrout in recent years as harvest closures have been implemented on other fisheries.”
There can be little argument that the NCFA is one of the “groups” questioning the science behind whether the stock is truly experiencing overfishing, as, to my knowledge, we’re the only fisheries group pointing out the undeniable uncertainty with the Spotted Seatrout assessments.
So, what other group has questioned the science behind whether the stock is truly experiencing overfishing?
I’ve read everything I can find regarding the current management of speckled trout and the only “group”, other than the NCFA, that’s questioned the science are the peer reviewers who reviewed and “approved” the most recent stock assessment.
That’s right, the peer reviewers also raised many of the same concerns the NCFA has been pointing out in recent months, including the drastically different results of each of the three stock assessments, the uncertainty of the most recent assessment estimates of fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass (SSB), and concerns with the recreational data.
We’ve made it clear that the only certainty, in the management of Speckled Trout, has been the extraordinarily high degree of uncertainty and it was this uncertainty that prompted peer reviewers to make the following statement.
“Status of spotted seatrout has varied markedly from one assessment to the next, and we recommend against attaching too much significance to a single assessment.”
As you can see, the peer reviewers recognized the uncertainty in these assessments, that we’ve been pointing out, and warned against placing too much faith in any of these assessments, as do we.
The peer reviewers went on to say that “gradual stable management (and regulation change) will be more consistent with the gradual pace of understanding stock dynamics”.
Gradual and stable management and regulation change was recommended by these peer reviewers due to the high degree of uncertainty and, once again, we absolutely agree.
In fact, given the uncertainty and the fact that DMF points to the current regulations as “current successful management” the NCFA believes stable management is the best option until the State gets a better handle on this stock.
Regardless, DMF recommended a 40% harvest reduction!
Uncertainty in Current SSB Estimates and Fishing Mortality Estimates
According to DMF, “based on the results, this assessment model was consistently overestimating fishing mortality and underestimating spawning stock biomass. Thus, theoretically, a lower estimate of fishing mortality and a higher estimate of spawning stock biomass would be expected for 2019 after adding future data.”
That said, given the fact that 2019 (terminal year of the assessment) was the only year when fishing mortality was high enough to represent “overfishing”, and that is likely an overestimate, and that, even with that overestimation, fishing mortality would likely drop when additional years of data are added to the assessment, how can DMF claim overfishing is occurring? Can overfishing of a stock even occur in a single year?
More than once, the peer review panel noted the uncertainty in the estimates provided by the recent assessment, especially for 2019 the terminal year of this assessment, prompting them to recommend that the terminal year estimate be replaced by an average of the three most recent years (2017-2019).
Again, while the panel noted that this assessment was a step forward, they warned against attaching too much significance to any of these assessments.
Recreational Data Concerns
The peer review panel also noted that “there is considerable (but unknown) uncertainty in the estimated dead recreational discards” and pointed out that the lack of size data for recreational trout releases “was a major data-deficiency for the size-structured assessment model, especially given the increased importance of live-release mortalities to the total fisheries catch in recent years.”
They also questioned whether changes to the MRIP recreational data survey impacted assessment results which is a valid concern given how drastically recreational harvest and discard estimates changed after the FES survey was implemented.
Even more concerning to us is the fact that recreational harvest and discard estimates are expected to change again in the near future.
NOAA recently acknowledged concerns with the FES survey results and is currently conducting a large scale study to gain a clearer understanding of the issue. A pilot study suggested that effort may be overestimated by 30%-40% in some fisheries due to “reporting errors and illogical responses” such as participants claiming they had taken more fishing trips in the most recent two month than they had over the last 12 months combined, which is impossible.
This only adds to the uncertainty and has the potential to change past harvest and discard data, once again, which could change the assessment estimates.
As the CCA pointed out, we do question the science, as do others, and with good reason. It’s important to note that the CCA didn’t dispute our claims of uncertainty, instead they attempt to justify further regulation by pointing out that in recent years, 2020-2023, both recreational and commercial landings have increased above the average from 1991-2019.
While this is true, it’s important to point out that commercial landings are in line with traditional landing highs and there is undeniable uncertainty with the recreational landings which are at an all-time high, if correct.
It’s also important to point out that harvest estimates from 2020-2023 tell us very little about the status of the stock without estimates of spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality, which we don’t have as these years were not included in the stock assessment.
Even if they were, given the uncertainty, would you believe them?
While the DMF acknowledges the uncertainty with the stock assessment, in the document itself, they fail to do so publicly, as does the CCA, and this is concerning.
It’s even more concerning when you realize that the peer reviewers recognized the uncertainty, warned against placing too much faith in the assessment, and recommended gradual and stable management, while DMF and CCA push for draconian harvest reductions that are neither gradual or stable!
Glenn Skinner
Executive Director
Upcoming Meetings and Public Comment This Week
Finfish Advisory Committee (AC) Meeting
Where: Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC
When: Tuesday October 15, 2024 at 6:00-8:00pm
Draft Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan Amendment 1
Public comment will be held in person only.
Habitat and Water Quality AC Meeting
Where: Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC
When: Wednesday October 16, 2024 at 6:00-8:00pm
No meeting materials were posted at the time of writing this but;
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and NC’s Management Framework and
Habitat Enhancement Data Visualization Project are the two main agenda items.
Written Public Comment for Speckled Trout
Comments are due Wednesday October 16th at 5pm!
Written public comments can be submitted online at this link – Submit Online Public Comments
Written comments can also be mailed to Draft Spotted Seatrout FMP Amendment 1 Comments, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, N.C. 28557. Comments must be received by the Division of Marine Fisheries by 5 p.m. on Oct. 16, 2024.
