“There is something fascinating about science.  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment in fact.”

-Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) in Life on the Mississippi (February, 1863)

 This statement by Samuel Clemens was written a long time ago and it is interesting that between then and now some things don’t seem to have changed very much.  Certainly science has improved in many wonderful ways and to the betterment of society.  In the fisheries biology arena however, the truth in this statement still haunts the rooms where fishery management issues are debated.  Science has improved to be sure with new methods, computers and long data series now available and in use.  There still is, however, a disconnect between science experts and the fishermen who are experts on the sea.

 As one example of how this disconnect continues to surface has been in the assessments as to whether lobsters in any quantity are or are not present in a particular area.  In one case south of the Cape, lobster fishermen were catching lobsters in significant numbers in a particular area and did so for an extended period of time.  The lobsters were potting there during the night.  Later in that same area, lobstermen moved their gear, although there were still lobsters there, because draggers were due to move in to drag during the day.  Those draggers didn’t catch lobsters.  The lobsters were there but not moving around during the day and were tucked away in boroughs.  Survey tows done by science teams are mainly done during the day and therefore do those tows really show a true picture of what lobsters are in the area?  How often have we heard lobstermen say “if the biologists could only see what we see”?  Trying to connect these two views together has been and still is a major problem.

 In a recent survey south of the Cape, scientists recorded lobster abundances significantly above what they were expecting to see.  Could fishermen there be right when they were reporting that they had been seeing a lot of lobsters in their pots? At a recent ASMFC meeting discussion dealing with Area 2, biologists to their credit, admitted that they were uncomfortable recommending the low target allowable catch limit that their data had suggested because it was based on a preliminary survey done with a general purpose tow not necessarily designed to catch lobsters.  To accept that limited information gleaned from that tow as fact would be akin to basing a stock status report on one or two lobstermen’s accounts of how the stock was doing in an entire area.  Would that type of information be accepted as fact?….probably not.

 The lobster science community works hard trying to gather as much data as they can with limited staff, time and money and what they do assemble is useful to a point.  It does give a sketch or show in some cases a trend.  It is, however, not good enough on which to base major management decisions that could have serious adverse social, community and financial affects on so many fishermen.  The product that is too often developed is based on conjecture or no more then an educated guess and comes from a trifling investment in fact.

 There needs to be some level of information below which no management decision can be made.  Good and adequate science should include every possible piece of information, the more the better.  What is available from the fishermen themselves is perhaps better and certainly no worse than what is now used and called “best science available”.  Combining the two could substantially improve what is then available.

 Fishermen have been willing to help and have been willing to add what they see into the database.  Some scientists have balked at letting fishermen gather information and also have been reluctant to use that information.  Here is another disconnect when it comes to making improvements.

 Only by connecting these two experts, the fisherman and the biologist, can we hope to get enough information to make decisions that everyone can at lease accept even if they aren’t pleased with the result.  Acceptance of that information and any resulting management action, if needed, would improve the chances that those actions will work where it is intended, in the ocean and not just in print in some plan.

 We would encourage the managers to insist on and foster the establishment of scientist and fishermen cooperative initiatives that can increase available data so that the information to be used is adequate, timely and credible.

 More facts equal less conjecture.

 Bill Adler
 Executive Director