I’ve begun reading through some of the penultimate Cohen Commission report: Technical Report #6: Data Synthesis and Cumulative Impacts.
The objective of this report as listed on the Commission website:
The researcher will synthesize information contained in the other contractors’ technical reports, to address cumulative effects and to evaluate possible causes for the decline of Fraser River sockeye salmon.
Quite early in the report, after a discussion trying to define what “cumulative effects” and “cumulative impacts” are is the rather common analogy utilized these days in the discussions of ‘fisheries’ science — the good old
rocket science vs. fisheries science.
Seems that many in the ‘fisheries’ science establishment and practice have become a little defensive about comments from various sources suggesting that fisheries science is not rocket science.
And so there is this quip from the authors of this report:
Rocket science is commonly used as a benchmark when describing the relative difficulty of other subjects (e.g., “It isn’t rocket science.”).
Fisheries science also isn’t rocket science, but it is nonetheless very challenging.
Rocket scientists rely on repeatable laws of physics, whereas ecological interactions are much more variable over time and space, and much less understood. If a rocket scientist had equivalent challenges to a fisheries scientist, s/he would be launching and landing rockets with all the key variables determining outcomes (gravity, atmospheric pressure, temperature, solar radiation, fuel quality, cosmic rays) radically changing from year to year and place to place, with little ability to monitor this variation, and considerable uncertainty about the basic theory behind each of these variables and their interactions.
And so we have a couple of highlights here: (1) considerable uncertainty about the basic theories behind… “fisheries science”…
(2) rocket scientists rely on repeatable laws of physics.
So, then let me add this variable into the equation, or beg this question:
If rocket scientists had to contend with the fact that they were going to lose approximately 80% of their rockets on a yearly basis — would they maybe approach things a little differently?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
This is the fundamental challenge I have with this entire process…
And it is summed up well here, within the report:
“Given all of the above challenges, what can fisheries science achieve that is helpful to both the Cohen Commission and fisheries managers?
First, science can test hypotheses, rejecting those that are unlikely or false. Even with considerable gaps in data and understanding, and mostly indirect evidence, contrasts over space and time in both salmon stock productivity and the potential stressors allow us to judge certain stressors to be unlikely to have been the primary factors causing declines in sockeye productivity or abundance.
The second challenge is gaps in basic knowledge or understanding. We generally do not know how, where or when sockeye die.
Well…ummm… I’ve got a pretty good idea.
It’s called US. (no, not the United States… us, humans, people).
We know from fisheries records that in the range of 80% of the entire returning adults coming back to the Fraser River on a yearly basis were caught by industrial fisheries.
So we do know where Fraser sockeye die — prior to them reaching spawning grounds… in nets set by humans.
So, in fact aren’t what we talking about here within the Cohen Commission — since no one wants to look at the simple numbers and simply hypothesis — that we are looking for some miraculous smoking gun theory, which is really based on the progeny (babies) produced by only 20-30% of the total adult run that was returning?
Remember, the 80% killed in fisheries before reaching spawning grounds — for over 50 years — is just the reported amount caught in industrial fisheries. This does not include unreported catch on the high seas of the North Pacific, bycatch in other fisheries, Alaskan fisheries, or unreported catch from in-river.
Plus, really, in the glory days of the BC coast sockeye fishery can we really suggest with any accuracy that we know exactly what was caught?
_ _ _ _ _
So, essentially, what we could have is a $25 million paper exercise (e.g. the Cohen Commission) that is looking for a smoking gun to explain why we don’t understand that if we kill 80% of the returning adults for decades, that 20% is unable to produce the same size run four years down the road.
This is a $25 million exercise that is only looking at 20% of the Fraser sockeye — essentially.
We’ll just pretend we don’t see that 80% of the run, dead in the boats — for over 50 years.
And we won’t talk about the more than 80% of the Fraser sockeye runs caught prior to 1950.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Does this not beg another question?:
If we call it “fisheries” science… does this not suggest that this is science based on: “fisheries”.
Rocket science is largely science based on “rockets” or many of the verbs surrounding rockets: launching, flying, landing, etc.– along with the variables that affect rockets and the verbs closely associated with them.
And thus would not ‘fisheries’ science then largely be concerned with the verbs that surround “fisheries”: catching, selling, landing, intercepting, and so on?
Where is the ‘science’ for the good of the fish themselves…?
_ _ _ _ _ _
Do we expect 20% of humans to reproduce the same size population — if 80% of our human population died before it even had a chance to reproduce, could 20% maintain our species at the same size?