Management or lack there of.
When the public and political veiw of what has been going is stated like this.
"Alaska Congressman Don Young railed against what the committee called "faulty science" saying, "Once again, the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot say with any certainty what is causing the Stellar sea lion population decline, but fishermen are again paying the price. While we have no idea if these closures and restrictions will benefit the sea lion, we do know that they will have devastating effects on the fishermen and fishing communities. From all the evidence I've seen, I can reasonably draw only one conclusion — we're confronted with an agency that has a premise, but a lack of information to prove or disprove it. ... As Alaska and Washington have aptly demonstrated, this NMFS doesn't have the best available science or even complete science, and, as a result, our fishermen and communities will suffer."
Why sould anyone think that the science used to make any other management decisions are better? Even Linda Behnken thinks that managers are not correct in thier management decisions with halibut.
How can the damage done to the reputation of managers and to the resource be repaired?
Science doesn't deserve a bad rap . .
In some cases the science behind management has sufficient and competent data with which to work, in other cases not. But I don't think either is important given the nature of the case.
Originally Posted by MGH55
It must be understood that in this case and in all others, "we're confronted with an agency that has a premise . . " There is always a premise behind any attempt at management. Sometimes the science is there to support and implement those premises, sometimes not. Science isn't the problem, nor should science take the blame. Science is not policy, science does not make the premises governing policy.
The problem is not science, science is merely a tool. In all cases, it is the premise that rules, not science.