What does the international game of cricket have in common with fisheries science today?
Stumped on this one?
Well, let’s have an Indian cricket player sum it up for you: “Wicket keeping is a lot like umpiring, as it’s a thankless job. People only remember you for your mistakes. You try and do your best every day, but you won’t be at your best every single day.”
Many scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are probably nodding in approval as they perused that quotation.
For decades, scientists at DFO have been vilified by many as the bad guys.
Rightly or wrongly, the DFO Science Branch has always been the target of the vitriol from the fishing industry — being blamed for everything from the cod collapse to the explosion of the seal population to virtually every other problem facing fishermen and processors today.
At times, being a fisheries scientist must feel like a lonely, unrewarding occupation.
But as many members of DFO science will tell you, they are just one cog in the giant regulatory wheel at the federal department. They recognize the importance of their jobs in crafting fisheries policy, but are quick to point out that they alone do not make the final decisions.
Fisheries scientists in this country always seem to have the cards stacked against them.
First of all, Canada is a huge country with an equally large and complex fishery being prosecuted on three coasts.
There is always the issue of staffing and funding. Harken back to 2013 when then Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government announced more than $100 million in cuts from DFO, with the science branch taking a huge hit.
This came in combination with the so-called gag orders on federal scientists. from the sitting Conservative government of the day. This led to many of the best and brightest minds in DFO packing up and moving elsewhere and in some cases to other countries to help monitor their fisheries.
And in other cases, fisheries scientists just can’t seem to win for losing.
The most recent incident of this involved the 2019 Northern shrimp surveys in shrimp fishing areas (SFA) 5 and 6. As a result of severe weather, DFO lost more than 20 days of at-sea data collection.
The union representing inshore shrimp fishermen was quick to point out that 24 per cent of the survey was not completed by DFO which raises significant concerns for fish harvesters who want to ensure a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the stock has taken place.
“A significant portion of the survey used to assess Northern shrimp and groundfish was incomplete. The Northern shrimp stock remains very important to many of our members and it’s crucial that DFO has the most accurate assessment possible to get a clear picture of the stock’s health,” says Keith Sullivan, FFAW-Unifor President.
So, what is a beleaguered fisheries scientist to do to combat the perpetual barrage of criticism?
Well, sometimes DFO can be its own worst enemy.
A good example of this was the release of the 2019 DFO report What We Heard — A Summary of Comments from Public Discussions on the Future of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Inshore Fishery.
The report outlined the findings from a total of 18 inshore fishery consultation meetings that were held throughout Newfoundland and Labrador during the winter and spring of 2019.
According to the report, “the purpose of these consultations was to provide a forum for individual harvesters and their representatives to raise concerns and ask questions on a wide range of fishery management topics. The meetings featured flexible agendas and allowed significant harvester participation. During the meetings, fish harvesters asked questions and offered their perspectives about various aspects of fisheries management and science.”
Nobody in the industry will argue that this was not a good idea. However, on the topic of fisheries science, the consultations lacked one important item, an actual scientist.
Under the topic of fisheries science, here’s what the report said:
Question: Harvesters asked why no DFO scientists were present at these inshore fishery meetings.
DFO Response: The purpose of the inshore fishery consultation was to discuss fishery management issues.
Question: Harvesters and their representatives expressed concern that entry to DFO Science regional (stock) assessment peer review meetings has been restricted.
DFO Response: DFO Science peer review meetings are designed to offer scientifically trained people a carefully structured opportunity to review the research methods, data and conclusions used in fisheries stock assessments. Over the years, the number of participants at stock assessment meetings increased considerably. To ensure the scientific integrity of the process, DFO has reverted to the original structure of the meetings. Participants are required to have knowledge and expertise related to the topic (e.g. species, stock assessment methods, mathematical modeling) under review. DFO Science also holds technical briefings after the peer review meetings. These briefings offer industry, Indigenous groups and other stakeholders an opportunity to review the stock assessment results. Once the science advice is finalized, a Science Advisory Report is produced and made available on the DFO CSAS website. The appropriate venue for fish harvesters to express their perspectives on the condition of fish stocks and how to manage the harvests is at species advisory committee meetings.
Question: A harvesters’ representative expressed concern with DFO operating collaborative surveys and science programs, such as sentinel surveys and post-season crab surveys, with industry associations in Newfoundland and Labrador and in other regions. The representative recommended that the Department end collaboration with harvesters’ organizations and recruit harvesters directly to participate in the surveys and scientific programs.
DFO Response: Collaborating with fish harvesters’ organizations is an efficient way to engage experienced fish harvesters in collaborative scientific work and to ensure an efficient exchange of knowledge and techniques regarding fish surveying and sampling.
And you wonder why some harvesters do not trust fisheries scientists?
In its own report, DFO uses the term ‘collaborating.’ The federal department needs to do a better job of collaboration involving all stakeholders. All players need to be involved in such important meetings as outlined in the report discussed here — including scientists.
Perhaps, if all sides of the fisheries management equation were permitted to consult openly with each, it might start to alleviate the decades of mistrust and finally allow the DFO Science Branch to throw off its moniker of being the departmental lightning rod.
