With the credibility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations's science once again at low tide, and embarrassingly in the spotlight, the response by NOAA leaders to the Gulf of Maine cod crisis has been nothing short of appalling.
That assessment — more widely believed, we suspect, than NOAA's own cod study that threatens to take another multimillion dollar bite out of Gloucester's waterfront economy — sank even lower Wednesday, when NOAA acting fisheries administrator Sam Rauch and attorney Adam Eisenberg told the New England Fishery Management Council that the agency's interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a "substantial reduction" in cod catches that "cannot further deteriorate" the stock.
So the council, facing a slew of credibility issues itself, recommended a range of interim cod limits for the new fishing year that will, at best, reduce fishermen's catch by some 250 metric tons, and at worse by more than 1,000.
That, of course, is absurd, given that there remain so many questions about the NOAA statistical findings and supposed science that's gone into the report — from logistics issues with the use of a new research boat, to issues with the analysis of the 2008 study, which found that the stock was approaching recovery.
Yet NOAA, true to form, cares nothing about the accuracy of its data, and NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco has refused to commission a new study that could go a long way toward resolving the dispute.
Indeed, in declining the call for a third assessment — an independent one, with true fishermen monitoring and participating in the study — Lubchenco once again gave another proverbial slap in the face U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who had every right to make the case for a new study and now has every reason to join the call for Lubchenco's immediate ouster.
Thankfully, there were some voices of reason, both from Cape Ann state lawmakers, at Wednesday's fishery council session.
State Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante and state Sen. Bruce Tarr indeed denounced the cod assessment as evidence of a governmental crisis in science rather than a confirmed one for the cod stocks. Ferrante noted that's borne out by the fact that Steve Murawski, NOAA's own chief scientist, proclaimed last year that data showed that the signs of alleged "overfishing" were essentially over.
So what happened, as she asked? NOAA doesn't seem to know — or care.
There's a real irony in NOAA leaders insisting on following a Magnuson "requirement" that new limits with new reductions must be put in place because the new study — despite serious validity questions — shows a dramatic cod decline. After all, provisions within Magnuson also require that NOAA and the council consider the effect of their regulations and limits on fishing communities such as Gloucester, New Bedford and many others, yet NOAA leaders — especially under Lubchenco — have blatantly ignored that standard for years.
But the bottom line should be the issue raised by Ferrante and Tarr — to get some sense as to what happened to bring about this supposed "crisis," and to be sure that any measure that would deal any new economic blows to Gloucester and other New England fishermen is truly rooted in science, not the grim science fiction for which NOAA has become so horribly noted, and is always struggling to "correct."
NOAA needs to put getting it right ahead of getting it "first" in time for the May 1 start to the new fishing year.
Sadly, there's no sign this dysfunctional agency, right from the top, is giving that any priority.
