Science behind fishing restrictions questioned

By Kati Capozzi

Last month, a peer review panel concluded that the 2010 decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to restrict commercial fishing of mackerel and cod in the western Aleutians was not based on sound science.

The three scientist panel, contracted by NMFS to review the agency science, claims the biological opinion (BiOp) does not support the determination that continued fishing in the region would harm or threaten Steller sea lions. Each of the three panelists identified separate flaws to the science, but they also shared many of their criticisms. Most notably, they all agreed that based on the available data there is no evidence to support the hypotheses that sea lions are suffering nutritional stress caused by commercial fishing.

The western population of Steller sea lions was listed as endangered in 1997. According to the NMFS, their numbers fell from 250,000 in the early 1970s to 49,000 in 2008.

The State of Alaska, commercial fishing companies, and many industry support organizations, including RDC, argued NMFS failed to follow correct procedures and lacked scientific support to validate the restrictions when they were handed down in 2010. NMFS said it had to comply with the Endangered Species Act.

Panelist Brent S. Stewart concluded in his separate review that “hypothetical suggestions for jeopardy…do not, I think, meet the standard established by the Endangered Species Act.” Stewart noted “the Biological Opinion often equated language of possibility” with “language of substantial chance.” In other words, Stewart asserts the BiOp is confusing what could be with what is likely.

“Their reviews confirmed our assessment of the foundational science,” said Doug Vincent-Lang, director of the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation.

Spokeswoman for NMFS Julie Speegle said that the agency is committed to making sure their decisions are based on the best available science and that the independent review was being carefully considered to determine if “any follow-up actions are warranted.”

Return to newsletter headlines