Fisheries association warns peer-review process leaves managers with uncertain science

Consultant Jess Hawkins, speaking for the North Carolina Fisheries Association, told coalition members the state’s stock-assessment process is uneven and sometimes yields assessments that are later deemed unsuitable for management. "All stock assessments are wrong, but some are useful," Hawkins said, arguing the key problem is poor data and inconsistent peer-review standards.

Hawkins said the state has increased in-house assessment capacity but that updated assessments are sometimes rejected for management use after review. He urged creating a new, independent group of scientific peer reviewers and using university and federal experts to improve the evidence base so managers need not rely on weak or disputed assessments when making rules. "There needs to be limitations to what the MFC could do without a peer reviewed and approved stock assessment and an FMP," Hawkins said.

Members and commissioners agreed that some species (bonito, false albacore) are especially hard to assess because they cross federal/state jurisdictional lines and lack reliable data. Several speakers recommended expanding data collection approaches, including targeted reporting of specific species and programs that pair fishermen with scientists to capture seasonal and night-time catches that standard sampling misses.

The coalition’s discussion paralleled earlier mentions that state overfishing statutes and political pressure can exacerbate conflicts when scientists, managers and stakeholders disagree over data quality. No formal recommendations were adopted at this meeting; Hawkins and others said follow-up stakeholder meetings in Raleigh and a March 10 session had been scheduled to continue the conversation.