The industry may be at first disappointed that the tows made with the "corrected" trawl were not significantly different from the ones made with the wires deliberately offset. We expected a large discrepancy, which would have cast doubt on the past two years' data, and it didn't happen. But there is another way to look at it, which was put before the Peer Review panel at the recent meeting in New Hampshire.

I made the following observation and raised the obvious question to the Peer Review panel: We have been told that there is very little difference between the "standard" (corrected) trawl survey catch and the catch of the trawl with offset main wires. Is it a logical inference that the fundamental inefficiency of the normal survey gear and methodology is so great that, in effect, it doesn't matter if you tow it sideways? And is it so desperately inefficient that it is totally incapable of providing the information we demand of it for stock assessment?

In other words, is it like a darts-player who only hits the board three times out of a hundred, but still hits it twice when he's blindfolded? The issue isn't the blindfold...it's the darts-player. When all is said and done, it may not be just the last two years' data which has been devalued, but the whole time-series, especially for non-groundfish species. It will be interesting to see what the Peer Reviwers have to say, assuming they address the issue.

In addition, I went through a bit of background on the Precautionary Principle, and how we had heard NEFSC personnel proudly proclaim how they had, of course, applied the Precautionary Approach in their assessments. This went on for a couple of years after the Sustainable Fisheries Act was passed. Then, about two years ago, I began to complain that the Precautionary Approach may be a good management philosophy, but that it was not legitimate for "scientists" to take it upon themselves to be "precautionary." That is not science, it's just politics masquerading as science. So for the last couple of years, we have not heard that proud declaration very much--at least in public.

After that introduction, I asked the Peer Reviewers to make a judgement as to whether or not there was evidence of the improper use of the Precautionary Approach in any of the biological reference points or the new biomass targets. It will be interesting to see whether they address the issue.

Frankly, I know it continues to go on, but whether the reviewers will have access to the kind of raw data that would demonstrate that is questionable.

And it is not the first time the issue has been raised...

James O'Malley