NMFS proposes revisions to the guidelines for National Standard 2
Someone with a better understanding of the science involved needs to look at this:
http://govpulse.us/entries/2009/12/1...ic-information
The highlights and why I thought they were worth commenting on
1.SUMMARY: NMFS proposes revisions to the guidelines for National
Standard 2 (NS2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) regarding scientific information. This action is necessary to provide guidance on the use of best scientific information available (BSIA) for the effective conservation and management of the nation's marine living resources.
Shows me that they might be questioning the validity of current data collection, BSIA, Best Scientific Information Available.
2.The intended effect of these actions is to ensure that scientific information, including its collection and analysis, has been validated through formal peer review or other appropriate review, is transparent, and is used appropriately by SSCs, Councils, and NMFS in the conservation and management of marine
fisheries.
Here's where the peer review comes into play, one of Jackbass' concerns. I'm concerned about that also. Is there a formal peer review currently in place as thorough as the one they're talking about here? Apparently not, if they're looking to make it more formalized, transparent, and have concerns about how it's used.
So far, so good.
3. Therefore, NMFS is proposing revisions to the
NS2 guidelines to address these MSA provisions and provide guidance and recommendations on peer review processes....
NMFS has carefully considered the public comments received in developing this proposed rule.
Just moving along with their main premise of strengthening the BSIA requirements. I would like to have read those public comments, though. IMO people who take the time to comment publically on issues like this are for the most part more informed on the issue than the general public is. I sometimes learn a lot by reading those public comments, and can gain a fresh perspective.
4. The NRC recommended approaches to more uniformly apply the BSIA standard for current and future fishery management actions.
Again, that's kinda what we as fishermen want, don't we? :thumbsup: For years we have been screaming that they catch data numbers are inaccurate, and they are.
5. Therefore, as recommended by the NRC, the proposed NS2 guideline revisions are based on the following widely accepted principles for evaluating BSIA: Relevance, inclusiveness, objectivity, transparency, timeliness, verification, validation, and peer review of fishery management information as appropriate. NMFS also
agrees with the comments that the NS2 guidelines should not prescribe a static definition of BSIA because of the dynamic developments inherent in making improvements in scientific information for fishery management.
The highlighted principles seem ok to me. When I was in school all science experiments talked about verifiable data. When I took statistics I learned if the sample size is not big enough when you extrapolate those numbers, your degree of confidence in your hypothesis is weaker. What I see here is a stronger determination (on paper at least) to quantify the data and better account for the variables.
Where they mention "static definition of BSIA", to me it seems either they are opening the door for admitting their mistakes more readily, or they could be giving themselves an out if someone like Dr Lubchenko comes along and tells them to discount the science in favor of an unknown agenda.
So if you don't trust the gov't, like me, it could go either way on this. :don't know why:
6. The availability of scientific information to inform fisheries
management varies....In light of this variability, the proposed NS2 guideline revisions elevate the importance of evaluating the uncertainty and associated risk of the scientific information used to help inform fishery management decisions.
To me it seems like they're kind of admitting their data collection has been flawed in the past and they want to push for more accuracy.
7 As a general rule, substantial management alternatives
considered by a Council should be peer reviewed, but in some cases, formal peer review may not be possible due to time and resource constraints.
Here's where they kind of give themselves a back door, could be good OR bad. :huh:
However, the development of such scientific information
should be in accordance with the principles of transparency and
openness set forth in this proposed action.
Big push (at least a "proposed push") for transparency and openness. I like that.
8. Peer Review Processes
This proposed action adopts many of the OMB peer review standards, including balance in the peer review process in
terms of expertise, knowledge, and bias; lack of conflicts of interest; independence from the work being reviewed; and transparency of the process.
^^Two very important provisions here.
Peer reviewers who are federal employees must comply with all applicable federal ethics requirements (available at:http://www.usoge.gov/federal_employees.aspx). Potential reviewers who are not federal employees must be screened for conflicts of interest in accordance with the procedures
set forth in the NOAA Policy on Conflicts of Interest for Peer Review subject to OMB's Peer Review Bulletin.
Conflicts of interest are spelled out clearly. If Dr Lubchenko were to ever go against these guidelines, and it could be proven, the idealistic lawyer part of my thinking says fishermen would then have a chance at prevailing if we went to court. :argue:
9. ....each SSC ``shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets, and reports on stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, social and economic impacts of management measures, and sustainability of fishing practices.''
SSC = Scientific and Statistical Committee. This defines the scope of their responsibilities.
10. Questions have arisen with regard to the role of the SSC and peer review process under MSA section 302(h)(6).
However, NMFS believes that section 302(h)(6) should not be interpreted so as to displace the SSC's role in providing advice and recommendations to the Council.
The purpose of a peer review process is to ensure the quality and credibility of scientific information, rather than providing a specific result, such as a fishing level recommendation.
I'm not sure, seems like a power-play between 2 agencies was the impetus that sparked this proposal. Otherwise why would they make comments like that?
I would really appreciate someone else's perspective on this.
11. SAFE Reports
The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has the responsibility for preparation and review of SAFE reports. The current NS2 guidelines state that the SAFE report is a document or set of documents that provides the Councils with a summary of scientific information, and contain specifications on the contents of SAFE reports.
Given to the Sec of Commerce. I don't know why, it seems all connected agencies must report activity summaries to each other. :huh:
12. Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Development
This proposed action maintains the current NS2 guidelines language on FMP development, with only minor changes to the organization of the text.
Self-explanatory.
13. Regulatory impact review:
NMFS has prepared a regulatory impact review of this action, which
is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/otherprovisions.html.
This analysis describes the economic impact this proposed action, if adopted, would have on small entities of the United States. NMFS invites the public to comment on this proposal and the supporting analysis.
Again, they're looking for public comment here.
14. I certify that the attached proposed action issued under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) will not have any significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities, as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.....
When NMFS takes fishery management actions, such actions
typically could have impacts on vessel owners and operators and
dealers. In this case, the proposed action would provide procedural
guidance to the Secretary and Council regarding the development of fishery conservation and management measures.
Here they clearly state they want to develop procedures to make sure commercial fishermen aren't harmed economically. They're looking for a balance.
I agree with that. As much as some of us dislike commercial fishermen, you can't expect people to all be vegans. :eek: I like eating meat and fish, as do millions of others. If a species was endangered, there should be severe restrictions. However for other species, you want to manage the harvest as best you can.
15. Sec. 600.315 National Standard 2--Scientific Information.
....(3) Information from data-poor fisheries may require use of simpler assessment methods and greater use of proxies for quantities that can not be directly estimated, as compared to data-rich fisheries....
(ii) Inclusiveness. Three aspects of inclusiveness should be
considered when developing and evaluating best scientific information:
(C) Relevant local and traditional knowledge should be acknowledged (i.e., fishermen's empirical knowledge about the behavior and distribution of fish stocks). To the extent possible, an effort should be made to reconcile scientific information with local and traditional knowledge.
Quite possibly the most relevant language to the whole mind-numbing 7 pages!! :clapping:
The admission that if their data collection and projection seem inaccurate, they should consult with fishermens data for comparison.
16 Finally, such products should openly acknowledge gaps in scientific information.
(v) Timeliness.--(A) Sufficient time should be allotted to analyze recently acquired data to ensure its reliability and that it has been
audited and subjected to appropriate review before it is used to inform management decisions....
(B) Timeliness may also mean that in some cases, results of
important studies or monitoring programs must be brought forward before a study is complete. Uncertainties and risks that arise from an incomplete study should be acknowledged, but interim results may be better than no results to help inform a management decision. Management decisions should not be delayed due to data limitations or the promise of future data collection or analysis.
This is one part I'm not happy with. It gives them another loophole. It seems like a lawyer may have written it. :don't know why:
17 Historical information:
(C) Historical information should be evaluated for its relevance,
to inform the current situation. For example, species' life history
characteristics may not change over time, and so remain relevant. Other time-series data (e.g., abundance, catch statistics, market and trade trends) provide context for changes in fish populations, fishery participation, and effort, and therefore provide valuable information to inform current management decisions.
Another passage that could be relevant in the future.
18. Validation:
(B) Validation refers to the testing of analytical methods to
ensure that they perform as intended. Validation should include whether the analytical method has been programmed correctly in the computer software, the precision of the estimates is adequate, model estimates are unbiased, and the estimates are robust to model assumptions. Models should be tested using simulated data from a population with known properties to evaluate how well the models estimate those characteristics. The concept of validation using simulation testing should be used, to the extent possible, to evaluate how well a management strategy meets management objectives.
Another point that indicates to me they're concerned about data accuracy and extrapolation from an inadequate sample size.
19.
(b) Peer review process. The Secretary and each Council may
establish a peer review process for that Council for scientific
information used to advise about the conservation and management of the fishery (Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(E)). A peer review process is not a substitute for an SSC and should work in conjunction with the SSC (see Sec. 600.310(b)(2)(v)(C)). This section provides guidance and standards that should be followed in order to establish a peer review process per section 302(g)(1)(E).
(1) The objective or scope of the peer review, the nature of the scientific information to be reviewed, and timing of the review should be considered when selecting the type of peer review to be used.
You might be interested in researching this area for us, Jackbass. :HappyWave: What I understood is that peer review is like an audit committee for scientists. Sure we would like fishermen to be on that board, but as it is a rigorous sientific process, I don't see that happening.
However I do have another thought on this. I think we as concerned fishermen need to be aware of the peer review committees. They might be agreeable to any additional data we could provide that shows them their data and resulting fishery projections are off.
The scope of work should be carefully designed, with specific technical questions to guide the peer review process; it should ask peer reviewers to ensure that scientific uncertainties are clearly identified and characterized, it should allow peer reviewers the opportunity to offer a broad evaluation of the overall scientific or technical product under review, and it must not change during the course of the peer review.
(2) Peer reviewer selection. The selection of participants in a
peer review must be based on expertise, independence, and a balance of viewpoints, and be free of conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of interest could be a good point to address in the future. I certainly believe Dr Lubchenko has several conflicts of interest. Here's what an attorney might use for ammunition in court.
20. Conflict of interest defined:
(ii) Conflict of interest. Peer reviewers who are federal employees
must comply with all applicable federal ethics requirements. Peer
reviewers who are not federal employees must comply with the following provisions. Peer reviewers must not have any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the scientific information, subject matter, or work product under review, or any aspect of the statement of work for the peer review. For purposes of this section, a conflict of interest is any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual on a review panel because it:
(A) Could significantly impair the reviewer's objectivity; or
(B) Could create an unfair competitive advantage for a person or organization.
(C) Except for those situations in which a conflict of interest is
unavoidable, and the conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed, no
individual can be appointed to a review panel if that individual has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed. Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, the personal financial interests and investments, employer affiliations, and consulting arrangements, grants, or contracts of the individual and of others with whom the individual has substantial common financial interests, if these interests are relevant to the functions to be performed. Potential reviewers must be screened for conflicts of interest in accordance with the procedures set forth in the NOAA Policy on Conflicts of Interest for Peer Review subject to OMB's Peer Review Bulletin.
Another clear area where I feel Dr Lubchenko needs to tread lightly. The only problem is she will not be in any peer review committee. She's the one making the recommendations. I would hope these federal ethical guidelines would apply to her as well.
21.
(3) Transparency. A transparent process is one that allows the
public full and open access to peer review panel meetings, background documents, and reports, subject to Magnuson-Stevens Act confidentiality requirements. The evaluation and review of scientific information by the Councils and their advisory panels must also be publicly transparent in accordance with the Councils' requirements for notifying the public of meetings.
Says they have to invite the public (us) to their meetings. The biggest problem is those meetings are held during weekdays when most guys are at work.
Several members have expressed to me privately that the way the economy is now, they have difficulty making it to meetings or protests of this type. They can't afford to take off work. If they really wanted a cross section of people's feedback, I think the scientific community could work out some better meeting times.
They have been playing this game for years, so I don't expect that to change.
22.
(6) Annual catch limits (ACLs) may not exceed the SSC's
recommendations for fishing levels (Magnuson-Stevens Act section
302(h)(6)). The SSC recommendation that is most relevant to ACLs is
acceptable biological catch (ABC), as both ACL and ABC are levels of
annual catch (see Sec. 600.310(b)(2)(v)(D)). Any peer review related
to such recommendations should be conducted early in the process as
described in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. The SSC should resolve differences between its recommendations and any relevant peer review recommendations per paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
ACL - Acceptable catch level.
I think this means they're still managing for MSY, which is Maximum sustainable yield.
For a species to thrive rather than just survive, I think this whole area needs to be addressed. I don't have a science background. Even a googan like me is smart enough to know that current guidelines for a fluke, seabass, red snapper, grouper, weakfish, or striped bass fishery are not scientifically preventative enough to stop an eventual collapse of a stock.
As more people become fishermen, the "minimum size mindset" means the bigger breeders get hammered. Sure letting the smaller ones go seems like a good idea. What you are really doing when science is managed like that is:
1. killing the breeders,
2. taking from the future to satisfy anglers for today,
3. putting off your obligations today because you're convinced you can worry about it tomorrow.
IMO the assessments, regulations, legalese, and all the scientific data in the world is moot unless this grave scientific inconsistency is addressed.
At some point in the future we're going to need a dialogue about this. http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...cons/icon3.gif
If the scientists in charge don't agree, we as fishermen groups will have to hire more scientists, and good ones, who can present compelling arguments why the current MSY philosophy is flawed.
One thing about scientists, their egos can be almost as big as lawyers' sometimes. :argue: I think it will be a long battle to get them to consider using a yardstick other than MSY.
However, it's a battle that we will have to fight sooner or later. I would rather address it now before we have another collapse of the stock, particularly the striped bass which I will never stop fishing for.
How about you people, what do you think? :don't know why:
Origin behind govtpulse.us
According to them, they want any citizen who is interested to be able to view and comment on gov't process as they happen in realtime, and comment on proposed changes ahead of time.
******************************
Basic Info
Founded:2009
Detailed Info
Website:http://govpulse.us
Company Overview:Customized Federal Register smart browser allowing you to search, explore and stay up to date on what every Federal Agency in the US is doing. Additional tools allow you to share the news via your social network and to take action via comments and contacting your members of Congress.
The Federal Register is the online journal of the US Government. It is published everyday except weekends and holidays. All Federal Agencies must enter new notices, proposed rules, final rules, and requests for information in the Register. Agencies must respond to all legitimate comments made on entries in the Register. Established in 1935 under the Federal Register Act it is available online since 1994. (read less)
Customized Federal Register smart browser allowing you to search, explore and stay up to date on what every Federal Agency in the US is doing. Additional tools allow you to share the news via your social network and to take action via comments and contacting your members of Congress.
The Federal Register is the online journal of the US Government. It is published everyday except weekends and holidays. All Federal Agencies must enter new notices, proposed rules, final rules, and requests for... (read more)
Mission:To provide more transparency into the work of our Government and to encourage and enable every citizen to take action in the areas they are interested in.
