[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 119 (Thursday, September 19, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1605-E1606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             BIG-TIME OOPS!

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 18, 2002

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, when I became the representative of a 
district with significant commercial fishing activity after the 1992 
redistricting, I became aware of a strong view among many who fish for 
a living that the quality of scientific knowledge on which fishing 
regulation was based left a great deal to be desired. In particular, 
fishermen have from time to time argued that their experience has 
demonstrated that there were in fact more fish than the regulators were 
counting. No one has greater interest in the sustainability of our 
fisheries than the fishermen themselves, and I was therefore impressed 
with the force of their arguments. My willingness to listen to their 
arguments was not based simply on this predisposition, but rather on 
the very convincing factual cases they made. Because of their 
persuasive arguments, I have in two instances, worked with people in 
the fishing industry to secure funds for independent research, and in 
both of these cases the results were to confirm that the fishermen were 
right and that there were in fact far more fish available--in part as a 
result of sensible conservation practices--than previous science had 
indicated.
  Most recently, fishermen were hit with a very restrictive decision by 
Judge Gladys Kessler which threatens the ability of many in this 
industry to make a living, and which threatens also very importantly to 
drive up the price of this important protein rich commodity for 
consumers by severely restricting the catch. Once again many fishermen 
expressed some skepticism about the science on which these restrictions 
were based.
  Recently, that skepticism has been dramatically confirmed. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service announced last week that the data 
about the amount of fish in New England waters on which recent 
decisions have been based was flawed, which argues strongly that there 
is in fact a greater stock available than previously maintained by 
NMFS. Specifically, as the New Bedford Standard Times summarized in its 
recent editorial, ``The NMFS scientist did not properly calibrate the 
trawl they use for annual fall and spring surveys in New England 
waters. One side of the trawl had a cable much longer than the other 
side, making it impossible for the gear to efficiently gather 
groundfish.''

[[Page E1606]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask that this very thoughtful editorial by the New 
Bedford Standard Times be inserted here, because I know it strikes this 
important point, and argues thoughtfully and persuasively for NMFS to 
follow its admission of error with corrective action. Further, Mr. 
Speaker, when this House debates the renewal of the sustainable 
fisheries act, known as the Magnuson Act, this admission by NMFS that 
it had seriously undercounted the amount of fish in New England waters 
will be relevant as I and others talk about the need to revise fishing 
regulation in a manner that will make it less likely that unnecessary 
restrictions will be imposed on hardworking people based on faulty 
data.

       [lsqb]From the Sunday Standard Times, Sept. 15, 2002[rsqb]

              NMFS Has Yet Another Reason for Cooperation

       What a relief it must have been for hundreds of commercial 
     fishermen in New Bedford and throughout New England this week 
     when scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service in 
     Woods Hole announced that their data for the last two years 
     was flawed.
       Big-time oops!
       There's nothing as satisfying as learning that you aren't 
     crazy after wondering whether you are.
       Many of our region's fishermen must have thought they were 
     going crazy, as they pulled up increasing numbers of 
     groundfish in the last two years, but were told by scientists 
     that many groundfish species were not recovering from decades 
     of overfishing.
       The NMFS scientists did not properly calibrate the trawl 
     they use for annual fall and spring surveys in New England 
     waters. One side of the trawl had a cable much longer than 
     the other side, making it impossible for the gear to 
     efficiently gather groundfish. It also made it impossible for 
     the data from these two years to be compared with data from 
     previous years.
       The NMFS admission is particularly important because this 
     region's fishermen are now under some of the strictest 
     regulations they have ever experienced. How this mistake will 
     affect those regulations remains an open question.
       But the National Marine Fisheries Service should take this 
     as a strong sign that more fishermen need to be involved with 
     scientific research for the sake of the fishermen, the 
     scientists, and overall accuracy in reporting fish numbers.
       Just as there have been federal science observers on 
     fishing boats, there should be fishermen observing the 
     scientific methods used aboard federal trawl survey boats. 
     Environmental advocates also should be part of the review as 
     another check and balance.
       NMFS would be wise to quickly establish a review panel 
     consisting of fishermen, gear experts, environmental 
     observers and scientists to examine the data in question and 
     determine the changes that are needed in current fishing 
     regulations based on these errors. Do we allow more fishing 
     of some species, less, or wait for new data?
       And it wouldn't hurt for scientists from the Northeast 
     Fisheries Science Center to make a humble and public apology 
     to fishermen for the error that could have a significant 
     effect on their lives, their families and the port 
     communities where they live.

     

                          ____________________